Alternative Dispute Resolution Practices in International Road Construction Contracts

Author(s):  
Krishna P. Kisi ◽  
Namhun Lee ◽  
Rujan Kayastha ◽  
Jacob Kovel
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.


2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 69
Author(s):  
Edi Hudiata

Since the verdict of the Constitutional Court (MK) Number 93/PUU-X/2012 pronounced on Thursday, August 29, 2013, concerning the judicial review of Law No. 21 of 2008 on Islamic Banking, it is no longer dualism dispute resolution. The verdict as well as strengthen the jurisdiction of Religious Court to resolve Islamic banking disputes. In consideration of the judges, judges agreed stating that Article 55 paragraph (2) and (3) of Law No. 21 of 2008 which is an ideal norm, contains no constitutional problems. The problem is the explanation of the constitutional article 55 paragraph (2) of the Act. The emergence of the Constitutional Court verdict No. 93/PUU-X/2012 which substantially states that the explanation of Article 55 paragraph (2) of Law No. 21 of 2008 does not have binding force, basically does not violate the principle of freedom of contract which is common in contract law. The parties are allowed to make a dispute resolution agreement out of religious court based on provisions as Act No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution. Keywords: dispute resolution, legal certainty and the principle of freedom of contract


2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 74
Author(s):  
Miswardi Miswardi

<p align="center"> </p><p><em>In line with the increasing demands of the business in the era of globalization, especially related to the resolution of business conflicts, business people have tried to find alternative dispute resolution methods other than justice. This is because the judicial institution as a legal institution that should be able to play its role in efforts to resolve various kinds of business conflicts, is in reality not as expected by business people. There is support for normative formalities. Therefore alternative dispute resolution institutions can be used as a very possible choice. This alternative institution is considered more effective in various aspects of business dispute resolution, in response to the demands of very fierce business competition. Some economic benefits gained from choosing a solution through ADR (Alternative Despute Resolution) are that this model is not formal, saves more time and also minimize costs in dispute resolution.</em></p><p> </p>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document