Construction arbitration

This subtopic forms part of the Arbitration module. An equivalent subtopic can be found in the Construction module: Arbitration for construction lawyers—overview.

An introduction to arbitration for construction lawyers

What is arbitration and how does it differ from other dispute resolution procedures? This Practice Note looks at the general principles behind the arbitration process, including those set out in the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) and compares it to litigation and adjudication. It also considers the use of arbitration for disputes in the construction industry. For further information, see Practice Note: An introduction to arbitration for construction lawyers.

The pros and cons of arbitration in construction disputes

This

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Arbitration News

Illinois Supreme Court establishes policy framework for AI use in courts

The Illinois Supreme Court has unveiled a comprehensive policy governing the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in its court system. This policy, stemming from recommendations by the Illinois Judicial Conference Task Force on AI, authorises the use of AI technologies by legal professionals and court staff, provided they adhere to existing legal and ethical standards. The Court emphasises that whilst current rules are deemed adequate for now, they will be subject to regular reassessment as AI technology evolves. The policy underscores individual accountability for AI-generated content in court proceedings and promotes ongoing education on emerging technologies to ensure equitable access to justice. This measured approach aims to balance the potential benefits of AI with the imperative to maintain public trust in the judiciary.

Abu Dhabi International Arbitration Centre announces appointment of new Registrar

The Abu Dhabi International Arbitration Centre (arbitrateAD) has announced the appointment of Maria Mazzawi as its new Registrar, effective 17 February 2025. In her role, Mazzawi will oversee the arbitrateAD’s Case Management Office, supporting its increasing caseload and strengthening its position as a leading arbitration hub.

The English Court re-affirms the high hurdle that section 68 applications must overcome to set aside an arbitration award. (Collins and others v Wind Energy Holding Ltd)

Arbitration analysis: This case arises from a claim to set aside the final award in an LCIA arbitration, on the grounds of serious irregularity under section 68 of the English Arbitration Act 1996 (the ‘Act’). The claimants contended that the tribunal breached its duties under section 33 of the Act (‘Section 33’) by: (1) refusing to adjourn an evidentiary hearing to allow the claimants obtain legal representation and attend the hearing; (2) declining to admit and assess certain evidence tendered by the respondent in the arbitration; and (3) adopting an inappropriate approach to certain issues in the final award. In dismissing the claim and holding that no serious irregularity had occurred under section 68 of the Act (‘Section 68’), the court found that the claimants’ lack of legal representation was a self-inflicted consequence of their failure to take proper and prompt steps to vary a freezing order issued in related litigation proceedings. The court also concluded that it was the tribunal’s responsibility to determine the extent to which it needed to probe the respondent’s evidence and submissions in the arbitration. Additionally, the court stressed that it is not the court’s role ‘to tell an international commercial tribunal how to set out its award or the reason therefor’ under the guise of applying section 68. Accordingly, a claim that the tribunal has ignored or failed to have regard to evidence relied upon by one of the parties cannot form the basis of a claim under section 68 (2) (a) or (d). Written by Dr Ademola Bamgbose, solicitor advocate and senior associate at Hogan Lovells, London and IfeOluwa Alabi, associate at Hogan Lovells, London.

DSIT publishes response to call for views on AI cyber security

The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) has published its response to the call for views on the cyber security of artificial intelligence (AI). The response outlines strong support for the proposed two-part intervention: a voluntary Code of Practice and development of a global standard. DSIT has updated the Code based on feedback, including adding a new principle on end of life and updating stakeholder groups. An implementation guide has been created to support organisations, particularly SMEs, in adopting the Code. The government will now take the updated Code and guide to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) to develop a new global standard for AI cyber security.