Litigation Proneness of Dispute Resolution Clauses in Construction Contracts

Author(s):  
Murali Jagannathan ◽  
Venkata Santosh Kumar Delhi

This book provides a clear and practical approach to the law and practice relating to construction contracts in the UK. It gives a comprehensive coverage of the substantive law and modern dispute resolution procedures in the field of construction and offers clear guidance when seeking difficult answers. It also includes key practical tips, such as where and when proceedings are issued. This chapter identifies the expectations and preferences of judges and how trials can be made shorter. It analyses the enforcement of adjudicators’ awards and the pitfalls of enforcement, including a practical approach allied with deep scholarship to secure the position as a definitive work on construction law.


Author(s):  
Tweeddale Andrew ◽  
Tweeddale Keren

The concept of the burden of proof is a fundamental part of any adjudicative procedure-whether it be court proceedings, arbitration, or adjudication. Stepped dispute resolution clauses are now the norm in construction contracts and this chapter examines how these clauses affect the burden of proof. English law provides that in cases where the burden of proof is unclear-because the parties’ cases are equally weighted-the burden of proof lies on the party who would be unsuccessful if it did not produce any evidence. Also, it does not matter if a party is making an affirmative or negative assertion, the burden of proof still lies with that party. The chapter analyses the issue of whether an adjudicator’s decision shifts the burden of proof by considering cases such as Walker Construction (UK) Ltd v Quayside Homes Ltd, City Inn Ltd v Shepherd Construction Ltd, The Construction Centre Group Ltd v The Highland Council, and Aspect Contracts (Asbestos) Ltd v Higgins Construction Plc.


2002 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 151-162
Author(s):  
Toshihiko OMOTO ◽  
Kiyoshi KOBAYASHI ◽  
Masamitsu ONISHI

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 95-105
Author(s):  
David Finnie ◽  
Naseem Ameer Ali

Adjudication has been statutorily introduced as an alternative dispute resolution method in 14 jurisdictions including New Zealand. Whilst adjudication under the New Zealand Construction Contracts Act 2002 has been hailed a success, further refinements were proposed in the Construction Contracts Amendment Bill first published in 2013. As part of the legislative process, 48 submissions were made to the Commerce Committee. There was general support for most of the amendments, but some parties expressed concerns on some of the changes. A documentary analysis of the Amendment Bills and submissions to the Commerce Committee was made to critically evaluate the changes proposed and establish if they were improvements. The findings show the major changes proposed include (i) removing most of the distinctions between the treatment of residential and commercial contracts under the Act, (ii) extending the scope of the Act to apply to contracts for certain professional services, (iii) removing the distinction between enforcement of payment determinations and of those relating to rights and obligations, and (iv) making the enforcement process more efficient. The findings also show that during a period of over two years from when the Bill was first introduced in January 2013, one other significant improvement for retentions to be held in trust was made. A few proposals to further refine the Bill such as the suggestion to mandate retentions to be kepts in a separate trust account were however not accepted. The Construction Contract Amendment Bill (Bill 97-3) was uninanimously passed during the third and final reading in Parliament on 20 October 2015 with most of the amendments coming into force on 1 December 2015, those incorporating professional services on 1 September 2016, and the retention provisions on 31 March 2017. Royal assent was given on 11 October 2015 leading to the enactment of the Construction Contracts Amendment Act 2015.


2005 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-116
Author(s):  
Masamitsu ONISHI ◽  
Toshihiko OMOTO ◽  
Kiyoshi KOBAYASHI

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document