Wright, J (2009) Mediation and dispute boards. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Management, Procurement and Law, 162(4), pp. 175-179. ISSN 17514312
Abstract
Dispute boards are well established as a reliable way of the parties to a major project minimising the risk of significant disputes arising and having to be referred to litigation or arbitration at the end of the project. This paper considers some of the rules under which dispute boards operate and the extent to which under those rules, and under relevant codes of ethics, a dispute board could act in a mediation capacity. It highlights some of the pitfalls involved in the dispute board acting in this capacity and suggests some practical ways in which the dispute board members might be able to assist the parties in reaching a speedy settlement whilst at the same time maintaining their third-party neutral status in the event that the mediation is unsuccessful. The paper also goes on to consider how such a mediation could be conducted and whether private meetings with each party in the absence of the other is a sensible course of action for the dispute board to adopt.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contracts and law; disputes and arbitration |
| Index terms: | arbitration, ethics, dispute, major project, litigation, mediation |
| Subjects: | dispute resolution, strategic project management, ethical practice |
| Topics: | Project Management, Legal Issues, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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