UK: Alliancing Thriving Post Recession

Last Updated: 16 July 2015
Article by Cecily Davis

In the second part of her article on alliancing Cecily Davis examines some of the legal and cultural obstacles to its successful spread in construction. The thirst for this more collaborative way of working is strongly in evidence, she argues, despite a recent rise in disputes.


  • An increasing willingness to pursue relationship contracting or alliancing is evident
  • What stunted the growth of alliancing in the UK – cultural or structural issues
  • Heathrow T5 is now used as a learning piece by many academic institutions
  • The Cardiff Bay fiasco is very largely recognised as being the beginning of the end of non-contractual partnering
  • For alliancing to work, the parties must accept a no dispute concept June 2015

The end of the Great Recession has not been without difficulty for the construction industry. One curious but perhaps unsurprising side effect of recovery is that there would seem to be a return to the dispute feast that had been rested when money was in shorter supply. Those under bid contracts and over ambitious programmes have, indeed, come back to bite both employers and adjudication continues to power on. It seems fanciful then to suggest that against the backdrop of a renaissance in construction disputes there rests an increasing willingness to pursue relationship contracting or alliancing but, nonetheless, this would appear to be the case.

Alliancing as described by the European Construction Institute is a form of longer term partnership on a project in which a financial incentive scheme links the rewards of each alliance member to agreed overall objectives. A project alliance operates very differently to a traditional contractual structure and offers flexibility and adaptability.

In Australia something like a third of public sector projects are procured using alliancing as their base. This is a significant proportion and way in excess of that to which the UK is able to point. The interesting question of our time might well be what stunted the growth of alliancing in the UK and, if we believe that it can offer advantages to both public and private sector procurements, what can we do to encourage its use. Is our underlying reticence towards alliancing cultural or structural?

It is well understood and also well documented that the oil and gas industries, with BP at their forefront, used alliancing as the preferred route for procuring the delivery of North Sea oil. Testament to the success of the procurement method must be that the company has introduced it to other sizeable projects such as the Grangemouth refinery petrochemical construction project. The project had a value of over £500 million and was the first system successfully to produce higher grade synthesised ethanol.

Many praise BP's Bob Scott, project manager for the Hyde and Andrew Alliances, with the vision to pursue alliancing. In 1994, he committed to writing some of the thoughts he had on the alliancing contracts he had put in place in a paper entitled Partnering and Alliancing Contracts, A company viewpoint:

'The overwhelmingly attitude was that BP knew best and we could not rely on contractors and suppliers to deliver, unless we finely detailed our requirements then employed large teams to monitor check and police them at every stage. Of course there were many reasons why these attitudes and practices in doing business with our contractors and suppliers had developed over the years. Nevertheless it seemed clear that they were a root cause of high costs and taking action to produce changing them was perceived as a prerequisite to us achieving our goals.

Features in common

In particular relationships with our contractors and suppliers seemed to exhibit the following features: Short term and essentially adversarial in nature. Unaligned objectives. Accountabilities not clearly defined.'

Paul Roberts, during his time as project manager at Honda UK Manufacturing espoused the virtues of a 'one team one goal' culture and in doing so secured for Honda the British Construction Industry Award in 2002 for the European Car plant project.

Many of those who worked with Honda in the construction and ongoing maintenance of the facility spoke positively about their improvements to their own downstream supply management. Paul Roberts was evangelical about the benefits which Honda gained from the partnering approach.

Few projects have had the coverage that the Terminal 5 project for BAA has had some 14 years after its commencement. The project was about the need to increase the capacity of Heathrow Airport. It was an exceptionally complex scheme involving 16 projects and more than 140 sub-projects. The complexity of building between one of the world's busiest airports and the UK's business motorway should not be underestimated. It is now used as a learning piece by many academic institutions promoting collaborative contracting and project management. The success of the Heathrow project was measured largely on the absence of subcontractor claims, the very low incidence of health and safety issues, and the successful delivery on time and on budget. Its effects in the industry could be felt through the material successes that were the 2012 Olympics and Crossrail. Many cite the project as the beginning of the change towards relationship contracting witnessed in the UK construction industry since the encouraging principles set out Egan and Latham.

In the years since Latham and Egan wrote so enthusiastically about partnering thoughts about how best to achieve some of the benefits promised have matured. Egan felt that there was much to be said for a more moral based non-contractual style. He considered that no more than a charter of some sort for the way to resolve contentious items or matters was required.


There are many examples of failed non-contractual partnering arrangements that draw into relief the need to put in place a proper framework. One such example is the unfortunate tale of the Cardiff Bay Development project where St David's Ltd and their contractor Birse Construction signed a charter with a number of stated aims. These included the promotion of trust, integrity, openness and honesty, the maximization of profits, and enhancing the reputation of all involved. The charter, with its ambitious and laudable aims was signed in May 1997. In November the parties expressed a common aim to execute the contract before the Christmas break and by March of the following year the client was notifying that LADS were to be deducted. In the summer the contractor had, according to the client, abandoned the site. It was the contractor's position that there was no contract in place and so it could not be in breach and could not have abandoned the contract. The contractor brought a claim in the Technology and Construction Court arguing that it was due a quantum meriut. The Cardiff Bay fiasco is very largely recognised as being the beginning of the end of non-contractual partnering; suffice to say that reliance on a partnering charter is now rare. There is much more commonly a familiar contract amended to give teeth to the virtues articulated in historical charters. The Heathrow project referred to above is recognised as being the point of origin for something more robust and project allianced based.

The no dispute concept

The construction industry is often characterised by the very high level of distrust, much more so, it is felt than the majority of other industries. It is often described as being the industry with the strongest culture of distrust amongst its members (see Wood and McDermott, 1999). It is then easy to see that, as the very centre of an alliance agreement is the commitment by the participants to the 'no fault, no blame' concept, this itself forms a barrier to the willingness to embrace the benefits alliancing can deliver. For alliancing to work, the parties must also accept a no dispute concept which at its most basic is an acceptance that in the event of an act or omission by an alliance party, there is no enforceable action in law or in equity. The only exception to this is typically in the sphere of what is referred to as wilful default. The relevant provision might look something like:

'No failure by a Project Alliance Party to perform an obligation or discharge a duty out of under or in connection with this Alliance Agreement will give rise to an enforceable action at law or in equity save where that failure constitutes Wilful Default'.

The Australian experience

In Australia where alliancing has been more established for some time, the enforceability of the 'no dispute' clause was the subject of much academic debate. Originally the received view was that a no default clause would be unenforceable on the basis that it was void for seeking to oust the jurisdiction of the courts. In Dobbs v National Bank of Australasia Ltd (1935) 53 CLR 643 the court considered:

'It is not possible for a contract to create rights and at the same time deny to the other party to whom they vest the right to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court to enforce them'.

This early view has now been replaced with a more progressive interpretation based on the court's reluctance to strike down bargains which parties have made in good faith. In Kymbo Pty Ltd v Paxton Management Pty Ltd [2001] NSW SC 792 it was suggested:

'Courts are reluctant to hold void a provision which the parties intended to have legal effect particularly if there has been partial performance of the terms of a contract from which the party resisting specific performance has derived a benefit.'

The concept of wilful or deliberate default/breach under English law has been the subject of several cases, yet there has been no consistent approach as to its scope. Potentially the concept is a broad one, and may be interpreted as including any deliberate act which results in a default under or repudiatory breach of the contract.

UK approach

In the UK the additional dimension that makes the 'No Dispute' clause interesting is the existence of the Housing Grants Act and the right it gives any party to the contract to adjudicate a dispute at any time. Many have relied upon the attitude towards cl 66 of the ICE (7th edn) to support an argument that the UK courts would not and indeed could not approach no dispute provisions in the same way as has become the case in Australia. It is contended that there is a distinction to be made between the timing of bringing a dispute between a forum and the existence of a dispute to begin with. It is difficult to conceive that a provision in a project alliancing agreement which sought to support the no dispute provision would be considered against public policy. However, if there is real appetite in the UK to push toward the Australian model then there is a need properly to understand how the courts would view the project agreement complete with its no dispute provisions.

Consider circumstances in which a party terminates a contract early without any default by the other party, where it has no express contractual right to do so. Or a contract which contains performance guarantees which are subject to liquidated damages, or a requirement to expend a specified amount remedying defects, following a failure to meet the required performance. The party which has given the performance guarantees may refuse to carry out any further work once the financial cap on liquidated damages or spending has been reached. Both of these scenarios are capable of constituting wilful or deliberate defaults/breaches.

Consequences of wilful default

So what might be the consequences of the occurrence of wilful default? We might expect that the defaulting party might no longer be able to participate in the alliance, that there might be suspicion of payment and there might be an indemnity from the defaulting party to the non-defaulting parties. Whether the indemnity would be capped and cover or limit economic loss would be for negotiation.

In the UK it is probably Network Rail that is most strongly working toward a process of collaboration and alliancing with its suppliers. The Stafford Area Improvements Programme represents a real 'pathfinder' project for many of the new processes which have been developed within the organisation to get alliancing traction in the industry. This project is said by many to be the most sophisticated form of alliancing and collaboration in the UK at present and it is certainly the case that Network Rail is investing well in its future development and success.

This article was first published in the June issue of the Construction Law Journal.

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.

In association with
Related Topics
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