{"version":"1.0","type":"rich","provider_name":"Acast","provider_url":"https://acast.com","height":250,"width":700,"html":"<iframe src=\"https://embed.acast.com/$/68f78f9f84f5a4920e0c693b/695bd18229db57949e63d5c4?\" frameBorder=\"0\" width=\"700\" height=\"250\"></iframe>","title":"The Adjudicator's Decision - To challenge or not to challenge","thumbnail_width":200,"thumbnail_height":200,"thumbnail_url":"https://open-images.acast.com/shows/68f78f9f84f5a4920e0c693b/1767624824571-98f9f151-947b-4959-af13-4beaf5c8f34a.jpeg?height=200","description":"<p>In this episode, we explore the final stage of the adjudication process: the adjudicator’s decision. Our hosts unpack what 'the decision' actually means, when should parties challenge the decision, and the difference between a flawed decision and an unenforceable one. This episode’s featured case study is the case of Beck Interiors v Eros [2024] which explores the limits of what is allowed when it comes to simultaneous adjudications.</p>","author_name":"Sharpe Pritchard LLP"}