UK: FIDIC Dispute Adjudication Boards

Last Updated: 12 January 2015
Article by Jeremy Glover

Of all the provisions to be found in the FIDIC form, those of clause 20 have attracted by far the most comment. One of the potential hurdles that need to be overcome with clause 20 is the appointment of the Dispute Adjudication Board or DAB itself. This is dealt with in sub-clause 20.2 of the standard Red and Yellow FIDIC forms and sub-clause 20.3 of the Gold Book. One particular feature of the FIDIC form of contract is that obtaining a decision from a DAB is generally a precondition to a party being entitled to commence arbitration. This can often result in two conflicting questions:

  1. What can I do if the other party to the contract refuses to assist in the appointment of the DAB? How do I resolve my dispute if there is no DAB and no DAB decision? Can I go straight to arbitration?
  2. Do I have to go through the DAB process? The contract is at an end. Obtaining a decision of the DAB is just an unnecessary duplication of costs.

Interestingly there have been two recent decisions which address these issues, one from England and one from Switzerland. It is therefore possible to compare and contrast the approach of the Civil Codes and Common Law.

Switzerland: Decision 4A_124/2014

This was a decision of the Swiss Supreme Court.

The attempts to set up a DAB

On 6 June 2006, the parties entered into a contract based on the FIDIC Red Book. In March 2011, the Contractor notified the Owner of its intention to refer to a Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB) a claim for €21 million.

It was not until 2 May 2011 that both parties had appointed their respective adjudicators.

In October 2011, the prospective chair of the DAB was provisionally agreed. However, no formal appointment was made because the DAB Agreement was not itself agreed.

In March 2012, the prospective chairman disclosed a conflict of interest.

A further chairman was not agreed until 14 June 2012. That second prospective chair requested that the parties produce a draft agreement by letter dated 2 July 2012.

On 27 July, the Contractor filed a request for arbitration with the ICC and a three-member Tribunal was appointed, the seat of the arbitration being in Geneva.

On 13 September 2012, the prospective chair of the DAB circulated a draft Dispute Adjudication Agreement (DAA). On 18 October 2012, the Owner suggested some changes and invited the Contractor to sign the Dispute Adjudication Agreement.

The Contractor replied the following day, noting that as the DAB was still not in place some 18 months after it had first tried to initiate proceedings, it had initiated the arbitration procedure to protect its rights.

The Owner challenged the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Tribunal on the failure of the Contractor to follow the DAB procedure required by the contract.

The Decision of the Arbitral Tribunal

On 21 January 2014, the Arbitration Tribunal made an award, by a majority, holding that the DAB procedure contemplated by clause 20 of the FIDIC form was:

"not mandatory in that it would be a precondition to the right to initiate arbitration or that failure to observe it would lead to inadmissability".

The majority of the Tribunal noted that in the FIDIC Contracts Guide the commentary on sub-clause 20.8 states that one of the reasons that there may not be a DAB in place is because of a "party's intransigence", and pointed out that the FIDIC General Conditions do not set a time limit to constitute a DAB, which they said would argue against the mandatory nature of the prior procedure of dispute settlement established by FIDIC. The approximately 15 months (March 2011 to July 2012) it took for the parties to succeed in constituting such a body in the case at hand, without either party being entirely responsible for the delay, was said to be irrefutable evidence of that.

On 26 February 2014, the Owner filed a request to set aside the interim award for lack of the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Decision of the Swiss Supreme Court

First of all, the court considered whether the pre-arbitration procedure was mandatory. The court was of the view that it was. The word "shall" was an obligation or duty and means that the action to which the verb applies must be undertaken. FIDIC itself made this clear in the definitions section of the Gold Book where it states at sub-clauses 1.2(e) and (f ):

"'shall' means that the Party or person referred to has an obligation under the Contract to perform the duty referred to ... whilst 'may' means that the Party or person referred to has the choice of whether to act or not in the matter".

In the view of the court, the DAB dispute resolution proceeding foreseen by clause 20 of the General Conditions is mandatory insofar as it must be finished for an arbitration procedure to begin. However, the court also looked at the approach of the Employer or Appellant, noting that:

"The DAB contemplated was more similar to an arbitral tribunal of first instance rather than an actual DAB, considering that it would intervene so late in the development of the contractual relationships and even after they were extinguished, when the respective positions of the parties were already fixed and the opponents doubtlessly irreconcilable. Therefore, even though it was proscribed by the General Conditions in principle, its implementation may no longer have been absolutely necessary in view of the economy of the system because it was unlikely that it would avoid the initiation of the arbitral procedure reserved by Sub- Clause 20.6 of the General Conditions. Seen in this perspective, the Appellant's will to obtain a DAB decision no matter what appears questionable at the very least."

Further, the court noted that the procedure to constitute the DAB had started 15 months before the Respondent filed its request for arbitration (10 March 2011 to 27 July 2012), which is a long time "in the context of a dispute resolution mechanism supposed to be expeditious": five times longer than the 84 days within which the DAB procedure must normally be conducted. The court noted that, after initiating the process, the Contractor tried several times to restart the process despite the Employer's "passivity", a role it shook off only after the filing of the arbitration notice.

Swiss Court Conclusion

Accordingly, the court concluded that: "In this respect, considering the circumstances germane to the case at hand ... they cannot be criticized for failing to denounce the Respondent's failure to sign the DAA from the point of view of the rules of good faith. Pursuant to these rules and considering the process of constitution of the DAB, it is indeed impossible to blame the Respondent for losing patience and finally skipping the DAB phase despite its mandatory nature in order to submit the matter to arbitration."

Thus, although the court agreed that the DAB procedure was mandatory, it also took into account the reasons why there had been no DAB. Here it would be a breach of good faith for the Owner to insist on the mandatory nature of the DAB procedure, given the substantial delay in constituting the DAB for which it was primarily responsible. In addition, the court did question whether in circumstances where the project was over, the ad hoc DAB would in reality be similar to an arbitral tribunal at first instance. Would holding a DAB "have been absolutely necessary in view of the economy of the system"?

England: Peterborough City Council v Enterprise Managed Services Ltd1

Here, following completion of a project, Peterborough alleged that the plant had failed to achieve the required power output and claimed the Price Reduction. On 6 January 2014 Peterborough issued a letter of claim under the Pre-action Protocol. EMS responded that in accordance with the Contract terms the dispute ought to be referred to a DAB. Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart was therefore asked to consider whether or not the terms of the Contract required a dispute to be referred to adjudication by a DAB first as a pre-condition to any court proceedings. If that was correct, should the court exercise its discretion and order that the Council's proceedings be stayed?

On the first issue the Judge decided that upon a proper interpretation of the Contract, sub-clause 20.8 would only apply to give Peterborough a unilateral right to opt out of DAB adjudication if the parties had agreed to appoint a standing DAB at the outset. Accordingly, given that sub-clause 20.2 provided for ad hoc DAB appointments, the Judge accepted EMS's argument that the Contract required the determination of the dispute through DAB adjudication prior to any litigation. The right to refer a dispute to adjudication arises under sub-clause 20.4 as soon as a DAB has been appointed, whether under sub-clause 20.2 or 20.3.

Peterborough then argued that sub-clause 20.8 provided an opt-out from DAB adjudication but that if reference of a dispute to a DAB was mandatory, the court proceedings should be allowed to continue on the grounds that:

  1. what was a complex dispute was unsuitable for a "rough and ready" DAB adjudication procedure; and
  2. any DAB adjudication would be an expensive waste of time as it was inevitable that the losing party would go to court.

Peterborough submitted that any decision by the DAB would almost inevitably provoke a notice of dissatisfaction from one or other party. Accordingly, to embark on the fairly lengthy (and therefore expensive) adjudication procedure under the contract would be a wholly or at least largely unproductive exercise. The dispute raised complex questions of construction and application of legislation, mandatory codes and standard industry practice and would require extensive disclosure. Therefore the "rough and ready" process of adjudication was entirely inappropriate to resolve this dispute.

However, the Judge noted that this was nothing new: the complexity of a potential dispute about when the required power output was achieved was foreseeable from the outset, yet nevertheless the parties chose to incorporate the adjudication machinery in the FIDIC form of contract. Both parties therefore agreed to the "rough and ready" adjudication procedure.

That said, in circumstances where the parties had not yet invested time or money in the DAB adjudication, the Judge was sympathetic to Peterborough's case that the court proceedings should not be supplanted by adjudication.

However, the overriding principle, as illustrated by the English legal authorities, clearly showed a presumption in favour of leaving parties to resolve their disputes in the manner they had agreed to in their contract. Accordingly, the Judge ordered that the court proceedings were to be stayed.

The Swiss and English decisions compared

Although the circumstances of the cases were very different, both the English and the Swiss courts emphasised that DAB procedures must be treated as mandatory.

One of the main differences between the two decisions was the attitudes of the parties. In the Swiss case, the Employer was essentially trying to frustrate the entire dispute resolution process, first by moving very slowly when it came to the appointment of the DAB and then using the lack of a DAB to allege that the arbitration tribunal did not have jurisdiction. In the English case, the Employer did not really want to have a DAB, preferring to go straight to a final resolution of the case. This may, to a limited degree, have had an influence on the decision.

Thus whilst both courts did agree that the DAB was a condition precedent to arbitration, in England this meant that the parties had to submit to the DAB, even though the Judge recognised that there was a real risk of duplication of costs. This was not a case where either party had invested any time or money on the preparation for or conduct of an adjudication, and so it can fairly be said that it was better to have one dispute resolution procedure, even if more expensive and extensive, than to take the real risk that this will be required in any event in addition to an adjudication.

However in the Swiss case, the Supreme Court, perhaps because the Swiss Civil Code, like that of Romania, makes provision for the parties to act in accordance with the principles of good faith, looked at the whole circumstances of the disputes between the parties. Here the Contractor spent some 18 months trying to bring about the appointment of a DAB before resorting to arbitration. An Employer could not then in good faith insist on the mandatory nature of the DAB procedure it had done so much to frustrate in the first place. This is rather helpful for contractors who are faced with an employer who is apparently trying to prevent what is seen as a legitimate dispute from being resolved through the DAB process.


1. [2014] EWHC 3193 (TCC)

International Quarterly is produced quartely by Fenwick Elliott LLP, the leading specialist construction law firm in the UK, working with clients in the building, engineering and energy sectors throughout the world.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Jeremy Glover
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions