WHEN a layman user of adjudication is told that an adjudicator may reach a decision that is palpably incorrect in terms of both fact and law, and yet that decision will be enforced (providing that there are no jurisdictional, procedural or natural justice issues) a look of incredulity spreads across their face. The question that often follows at that time is; if an adjudicator's decision can be enforced even where it is wrong in both fact and in law, is adjudication fit for purpose? When considering this issue, one needs to consider what the purpose is that adjudication is meant to be fit for? To get to the root of this issue we need to rewind a little.
展开▼
