Agapiou, A (2022) Briefing: The role of the technology and construction court in alternative dispute resolution. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Management, Procurement and Law, 177(2), pp. 61-64. ISSN 1751-4304
Abstract
The construction industry is highly litigious, and disputes can be costly, not merely in a financial sense but also in terms of the breakdown of otherwise valuable relationships due to the conflict. While arbitration and adjudication are commonly used in the construction sphere as dispute resolution tools, the adversarial nature of such processes may hold deleterious consequences for parties in terms of financial costs, delays, risks and loss of business. It was not until the late 1980s that it was realised that conventional litigation for construction disputes was far too cumbersome and expensive. Arbitration was the traditional method for the resolution of construction disputes for many years until the introduction of a range of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) techniques, adjudication and the introduction of pre-action protocols in litigation. The English courts have also proven eager to embrace ADR during the early stages of litigation proceedings, particularly when litigation costs will exceed the amount in dispute. This briefing examines the role of the Technology and Construction Court in ADR.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | contracts & law/disputes & arbitration/un SDG 16: peace; justice; strong institutions |
| Index terms: | alternative dispute resolution, justice, resolution, construction industry, briefing, litigation, adjudication, construction dispute, arbitration, dispute |
| Subjects: | dispute resolution, scope management, legal systems, conflict resolution, contract management, industry analysis |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Stakeholder Management, 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