Natural justice and biasness

Such someone is the God and His laws, divine law or natural law, to which all temporal laws and actions must confirm. Natural Law is of the 'higher law of nature' or 'natural law' Natural Law does not mean the law of the nature or jungle where lion eats the lamb and tiger eats the antelope but a law in which the lion and lamb lie down together and the tiger frisks the antelope.

Natural justice and biasness

United Kingdom December 21 Jurisdictional challenges on adjudication enforcement proceedings can be many and various. The following case addressed the issue of jurisdiction, natural justice and adjudicator bias.

The sub-contract works were completed on 10 Junesome 16 weeks late. Liquidated damages were deducted and issues arose between the parties as to whether extensions of time were due to the sub-contractor.

The sub-contractor commenced adjudication proceedings in September The sub-contractor sought an extension of time to 22 September for delayed access to Block Z which was claimed on a prospective basis judged as at October The first adjudicator decided on 4 November that no extension of time was due for delayed access to Block Z.

The sub-contractor then produced on 23 December a retrospective delay analysis of the delays encountered when carrying out the sub-contract works. This included delays due to the late access to seven zones including Block Z.

The sub-contractor sought an extension of time to at least 10 June and served its second notice of adjudication on 9 April During the second adjudication, the sub-contractor complained that the contractor had failed to provide disclosure of the main contract files; the contractor argued that the sub-contractor should only be entitled to selective disclosure.

The contractor sought to resist the enforcement proceedings on jurisdictional grounds and on the basis that the second adjudicator was biased and otherwise acted in breach of the rules of natural justice.

Did the adjudicator have jurisdiction to decide that late access delays were part of what he was required to decide? The first issue was whether the dispute referred to the second adjudicator permitted him to decide that the sub-contractor was entitled to an extension of time for delay caused by late access.

The court adopted the principles set out in Cantillon Limited v Urvasco Limited [] BLR on the question of whether the second adjudicator had jurisdiction. Disputes could be broad or narrow. For there to be a dispute there needed to be a claim or assertion which was expressly or impliedly rejected or at least not accepted.

An extension of time claim could be made on one specific basis. If that claim was disputed that dispute could be referred to adjudication. Similarly, an extension of time claim could be concerned with each and everything which did or did not happen on a specific project and that claim could also be referred to adjudication.

Natural justice and biasness

The sub-contractor, if it had referred the narrow dispute to adjudication, was not barred from the referring the broader dispute to adjudication, subject to one caveat: If the later adjudication decision materially purported to decide something which had already been effectively and validly adjudicated upon then it might be wholly or partly unenforceable.

The court held that on the facts, the second adjudicator had not exceeded his jurisdiction by deciding that an extension of time was due to the sub-contractor. Did the adjudicator breach the rules of natural justice? The next issue was whether the second adjudicator had breached the rules of natural justice in making an adverse inference in relation to the non-production of documents by the contractor.

The judge reviewed the authorities and derived the following principles:Jurisdictional challenges on adjudication enforcement proceedings can be many and various. The Court of Appeal has expressed the view that judges should be astute to discern appropriate challenges.

The term natural justice signifies basic principles of justice, which are made available to every litigant during trial.

Principles of natural justice are founded on reason, and enlightened public policy.

What Is Natural Justice? » Smith and Partners Lawyers The hearing rule governs the procedural features of decision making.
Natural justice - Wikipedia Natural justice has a long and disparate history.
Groves, M --- "The Rule Against Bias" [2009] UMonashLRS 10 Inthe Court ruled in Baker v. Canada Minister of Citizenship and Immigration that the requirements of natural justice vary according to the context of the matter arising.
What Is Natural Justice? » Smith and Partners Lawyers The hearing rule governs the procedural features of decision making. The bias rule governs the attitude or state of mind of the decision maker.

The rules of natural justice provide a minimum standard of procedural fairness and the exact requirements will vary depending on the context. We use cookies to enhance your experience on our website. By continuing to use our website, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

Related content in Oxford Reference

Natural justice. Definition: Natural justice also known as substantial justice, fundamental justice universal justice and fair play in action.

It is very difficult to. Natural Justice.4) What is natural justice?Natural justice is a natural sense of what is right and wrong.

It is a procedural concept and does not imposed any substantive restriction. Besides that, natural justice is also a fair administrative procedure to be followed by the administrative body in arriving at a right iridis-photo-restoration.coml justice has . The rules of natural justice The rules of Natural Justice require all trials and hearings to be rooted in fairness.

Following the case of Re HK (an infant) () the phrase “act fairly” was established making it incumbent on all decision makers to act fairly.

Natural justice or procedural fairness