(New Zealand Court of Appeal) ‘In Hatrick the term ‘fairness’ was avoided in the judgments, Richmond J saying that he resisted it partly because of its vagueness and partly because it might be regarded as equivalent to natural justice. . . . In our opinion it should be held in the light of these authorities that in certifying or acting under Clause 13 here the Engineer, though not bound to act judicially in the ordinary sense, was bound to act fairly and impartially. Duties expressed in terms of fairness are being recognised in other fields of law also, such as immigration. Fairness is a broad and even elastic concept, but it is not altogether the worse for that. In relation to persons bound to act judicially fairness requires compliance with the rules of natural justice. In other cases this is not necessarily so.’
Judges:
Cooke J
Citations:
(1979) 16 BLR 76
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Sutcliffe v Thackrah and Others HL 1974
In acting under clause 66 of the ICE conditions, the Engineer was in the intermediate position of a quasi-arbitrator. The House described in terms of ‘fairness’ the duty of an architect when acting not as an arbitrator or quasi-arbitrator but in the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Amec Civil Engineering Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport CA 17-Mar-2005
The contractors appealed a decision that an arbitrator had jurisdiction to hear a claim against them in respect of works carried out on the Thelwall viaduct. The contractors denied that there had been a dispute which could found a reference, and no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Construction
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.224305