“Is That Not Horrific?”—or “You Have Been Warned!” Burchell v. Bullard and Implications for English Construction Law
Publication: Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice
Volume 132, Issue 3
Abstract
In recent times, the cost of litigation has emerged as a serious issue in construction law. This paper examines the approach adopted by the English Courts in the light of recent reforms to the civil justice system and important case law. Important legal decisions indicate a change in judicial attitudes to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) which was previously thought to be unenforceable by reason of uncertainty until very recently. This paper looks at the development of so-called “ADR law” in the English courts and discusses policy issues behind the recent case of Burchell v. Bullard. The paper concludes that although the English Courts will not impose ADR on unwilling parties, draconian cost sanctions await those who unreasonably reject ADR before proceeding to trial. Guidance is given on the tricky legal issue of how to ascertain whether a refusal is reasonable or unreasonable by exploring recently decided cases. The in-depth examination of Burchell v. Bullard gives an insight into how the judiciary approach perplexing questions of reasonableness in cases where a verdict of “unreasonable rejection” can have catastrophic cost implications for litigants.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© 2006 ASCE.
History
Received: Oct 20, 2005
Accepted: Feb 24, 2006
Published online: Jul 1, 2006
Published in print: Jul 2006
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.