Arbitration in Construction Dispute
Arbitration in Construction Disputes A Procedural and Legal Overview
ARBITRATION IN CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES
A Procedural and Legal Overview
By
OON CHEE KHENG
BE (Civil) (UNSW), LLB (Hons), MBA, CLP, MIEM, PEng (M) Advocate and Solicitor
A paper based on a lecture delivered on 24 May 2003 in Seremban to The Institution of Engineers, Malaysia (Negri Sembilan Branch)
1.0
INTRODUCTION Contrary to popular belief and knowledge, arbitration is not the only means of resolving disputes arising from construction contracts.1 Compared to other means of dispute resolution, arbitration as a means of resolving disputes does however have well-defined and generally well-understood mechanisms: this enables it to gain recognition as occupying its very definite place in the arena of dispute resolution “industry”. Further, even though there is some erosion to arbitration’s monopoly in standard forms of construction contracts as the sole and compulsory means of dispute resolution, it will not be wrong to state that arbitration as a means of resolving construction industry disputes is at the moment relatively well-entrenched. Besides, or because of this, there is also the legislative protection and control for arbitration principally in the form of Arbitration Act 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1952 Act”). That is the reason why apart from arbitration and litigation, the rest of the dispute resolution mechanisms are collectively referred to as Alternative Dispute Resolution (or ADR for short). This paper is a brief overview of the legal and procedural landscape of arbitration from its commencement to its conclusion and thereafter. Being an overview, this paper cannot be treated as an exhaustive treatment of the subject, nor is it an attempt so to do: detailed and authoritative expositions can be found elsewhere.2
See, for an overview of other dispute resolution mechanisms, Oon Chee Kheng, Resolution of Construction Industry Disputes – An Overview being a paper
ARBITRATION IN CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES
A Procedural and Legal Overview
By
OON CHEE KHENG
BE (Civil) (UNSW), LLB (Hons), MBA, CLP, MIEM, PEng (M) Advocate and Solicitor
A paper based on a lecture delivered on 24 May 2003 in Seremban to The Institution of Engineers, Malaysia (Negri Sembilan Branch)
1.0
INTRODUCTION Contrary to popular belief and knowledge, arbitration is not the only means of resolving disputes arising from construction contracts.1 Compared to other means of dispute resolution, arbitration as a means of resolving disputes does however have well-defined and generally well-understood mechanisms: this enables it to gain recognition as occupying its very definite place in the arena of dispute resolution “industry”. Further, even though there is some erosion to arbitration’s monopoly in standard forms of construction contracts as the sole and compulsory means of dispute resolution, it will not be wrong to state that arbitration as a means of resolving construction industry disputes is at the moment relatively well-entrenched. Besides, or because of this, there is also the legislative protection and control for arbitration principally in the form of Arbitration Act 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1952 Act”). That is the reason why apart from arbitration and litigation, the rest of the dispute resolution mechanisms are collectively referred to as Alternative Dispute Resolution (or ADR for short). This paper is a brief overview of the legal and procedural landscape of arbitration from its commencement to its conclusion and thereafter. Being an overview, this paper cannot be treated as an exhaustive treatment of the subject, nor is it an attempt so to do: detailed and authoritative expositions can be found elsewhere.2
See, for an overview of other dispute resolution mechanisms, Oon Chee Kheng, Resolution of Construction Industry Disputes – An Overview being a paper