Abstract
The objective of this study is to present the issues encountered by construction industry practitioners resolving disputes through the adoption of the dispute board (or DB) and statutory adjudication (or SA). This research is significant due to the often adversarial working environment in a typical construction and engineering project, as well as substantial adverse consequences resulting from disputes that have not been adequately resolved between two or more of its stakeholders. This paper presents the historical background and aims of and main principles behind the introduction of DB and SA. Stakeholder practitioners involved in three case study projects were then interviewed to reveal issues encountered with their adoption of DBs and/or SAs. Their perceived effectiveness, as well as suitability, to resolve disputes within construction then underwent comparative analysis. Barriers were found which had contributed towards a general apprehension by practitioners in the major case study projects to adopt either of these dispute-resolution methods. This paper suggests that these barriers significantly relate to the perceived formality of their procedures, potentially expensive legal costs involved and subsequent harm to future working relationships.
Highlights
Construction and engineering projects by their nature are heavily dependent on subcontracted work (ABS, 2017; Cole, 2003; Davenport, 2010; Yung and Rafferty, 2014)
Two prominent methods used for resolving disputes include the dispute board and statutory adjudication (Gebken-Li and Gibson, 2006; Murphy et al, 2014), which, in New South Wales, Australia, are conducted in compliance with the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW Government, 1999), known as the SoP Act
Determining an appropriate method of dispute resolution for a construction/engineering project had required further data to be gathered from its industry practitioners (Coggins et al, 2010)
Summary
Construction and engineering projects by their nature are heavily dependent on subcontracted work (ABS, 2017; Cole, 2003; Davenport, 2010; Yung and Rafferty, 2014). Disputes could potentially result in cost increases, delays and deteriorated working relationships (Chapman, 2009; Gebken-Li and Gibson, 2006; Harmon, 2003a). Resolving these quickly could serve to prevent further disputes and minimise their associated cost (Davenport, 2010; Murphy et al, 2014). DBs in particular focus on dispute prevention and should be used in conjunction with another method for resolving disputes (DRBF, 2016; Harmon, 2003a; Yates and Duran, 2006) Both the DB and SA have been proven by Harmon (2003a, 2003b) as effective in contributing towards the productivity of construction and engineering projects. The research work presented in this paper departs from these studies as it focused on comparing the unconventional alternate methods of dispute resolution (or ADR), DB and SA
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Management, Procurement and Law
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
