Arbitration for construction lawyers

Arbitration is a consensual and private form of binding dispute resolution, conducted before one or more impartial arbitrators (typically a tribunal of three) whose powers and duties are delineated in the parties’ agreement to arbitrate.

The Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) is the principal English arbitration statute. AA 1996, s 1 states that:

•
the object of the arbitration is to obtain the fair resolution of disputes by an impartial tribunal without unnecessary delay or expense
•
the parties should be free to agree how their disputes are resolved, subject only to such safeguards as are necessary in the public interest
•
court intervention should be restricted

Arbitration used to be very popular as a method of resolving disputes in the construction industry in the UK. This is less so now as a result of statutory adjudication under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 and the success of the Technology and Construction Court. Arbitration remains extremely popular as a method of resolving disputes for international contracts.

See Practice Note: An introduction to arbitration for construction lawyers.

Pros and cons of arbitration

There

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 Construction News

Defra announces measures to accelerate development of offshore wind projects

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has announced measures to accelerate the development of offshore wind projects in the UK. The government is streamlining the consenting process for up to 13 major offshore wind projects, potentially generating 16GW of electricity and unlocking £20-30bn of investment in homegrown clean power. These changes will enable the government to designate new or extend existing Marine Protected Areas to offset impacts to the seabed caused by offshore wind development, preventing delays previously caused by insufficient environmental compensation agreements, with costs funded by developers through the Marine Recovery Fund. Any new designations of Marine Protected Areas will adhere to the existing legislative process, including consultation with affected industries and communities.

Construction weekly highlights—30 January 2025

This week's edition of Construction weekly highlights includes analysis of cases where the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) found a ‘building safety risk’ which could lead to the making of a ‘building liability order’ under the Building Safety Act 2022 (381 Southwark Park Road v Click St Andrews), where the Court of Session enforced an adjudicator’s award following ‘Smash and Grab’ adjudication proceedings (ATG Services v Ogilvie), where the TCC gave valuable guidance on payment notices, pay less notices, and default payment notices (Placefirst v Car Construction), and where the Court of Appeal (CoA) dismissed an appeal related to the High Court’s calculation of damages where the claimant’s mitigation actions resulted in an increased benefit to the company, as well as the Cabinet Office’s update on the final preparations for the Procurement Act 2023 (PA 2023) coming into force on 24 February 2025, and publication by HM Treasury (HMT) of a working paper on its 10 Year Infrastructure Strategy.

High Court finds a ‘building safety risk’ which could lead to the making of a ‘building liability order’ under the Building Safety Act 2022 and permits RTM company to claim damages on behalf of leaseholders (381 Southwark Park Road RTM & Various Leaseholders v Click St Andrews)

Property Disputes analysis: This is the first High Court case to hold that defective works by a developer gave rise to a ‘relevant liability’ as a result of a ‘building safety risk’ under section 130(3)(b) of the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA 2022), paving the way for the claimant right to manage company (RTM Co) to apply at a subsequent hearing for a building liability order (BLO) against the parent company of the insolvent developer. The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) gave guidance on the procedure for seeking a BLO. Further, the RTM Co was, under an agreement to purchase the property, able to recover against the developer and by extension against the parent company as guarantor, all of the individual leaseholders’ losses for breach of covenant in their leases. Written by Tiffany Scott, barrister, Wilberforce Chambers.

Valuable guidance on payment notices, pay less notices, and default payment notices (Placefirst v Car Construction)

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) held that a contractor had served a valid payment and pay less notice in relation to an interim payment dispute. The judgment gives important guidance on the timing and form of payment and pay less notices, and payee’s notices in default, addressing several matters that have not been considered in prior decisions. It also brings into question whether certain provisions of the Joint Contracts Tribunal (JCT) forms of sub-contract comply with the payment requirements of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA 1996).