Athanasakis, D (2007) Has multiparty arbitration failed in construction disputes? Legal and practical issues in drafting joinder provisions. In: Boyd, D (ed.) Proceedings of 23rd Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2007, Belfast, UK.
Abstract
Multiparty arbitration is a reliable legal mechanism for resolving construction disputes that affect a plethora of project parties. Ensuing awards are binding, final and directly enforceable against all affected parties. In the past years, non-adversarial contractual schemes have partly displaced multiparty arbitration. Nevertheless, construction projects have become increasingly complex and their legal environment seems totally unregulated. At present, parties treat multiparty construction dispute resolution with circumspection. If it is to become more effective, contract draftsmen must reflect upon the dynamics of multiparty arbitration and propose grounded institutional changes to provisions which allow joinder of parties. Certainly, success in this mechanism depends on the quality of the contractual terms. Research on the legal and practical issues in drafting joinder provisions will dispel the distorted image of multiparty arbitration and present client groups and engineers with fresh opportunities for concrete dispute resolution.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | disputes; joinder provisions; multiparty arbitration |
| Index terms: | non-adversarial, project party, contractual term, dispute, dynamics, drafting, construction project, construction dispute, arbitration, resolution, institutional change, engineer |
| Subjects: | production management, technical documentation, dispute resolution, systems engineering, profession, conflict resolution, sociology, contract structure, management |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Project Management, Contract Administration, Roles and Professions, Engineering Principles, Design Practice, Business Strategy, Stakeholder Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here