UK: Current Trends In Construction Dispute Resolution

Last Updated: 21 November 2006
Article by Simon Konsta

Arbitration, the darling of the ’90s, subsequently lost favour. Is it now making a comeback with the "100 day" arbitration procedure, or the availability of experienced construction judges as arbitrators? The court back-log used to deter many, but the Civil Procedure Rules have undoubtedly streamlined the litigation process. The Technology and Construction Court has more capacity than ever. Is this winning back combatants, or do the ever higher court fees deter? Will the new runners, adjudication, mediation and Dispute Boards ("DBs") continue to attract?

We consider the different methods of resolving construction disputes, and the implications for those concerned and their insurers.


Traditionally, construction disputes were always litigated, the favoured forum being the Official Referees’ court, renamed the Technology and Construction Court ("TCC") in 1998. Over the last 10 years, however, the number of claims issued has fallen from over 1,700 in 1995 to around 390 in 2004.

This reduction can, in part, be attributed to the Court’s own successes in introducing the Civil Procedure Rules in 1999, which implemented a pre-action protocol process. This requires an early exchange of information, and meetings between the parties, to encourage the resolution of the dispute without recourse to proceedings. Another factor, however, may be the current cost of litigation. To issue proceedings for a claim exceeding £300,000 now costs £1,700. This is 20 times what it was in the early 1980s. Pressure from the Government for the courts to be self-funding will only lead to an increase in litigation costs. The Department for Constitutional Affairs is currently seeking consultation on a proposal to charge litigants on an hourly basis for the court and judges’ time.

Although the current capacity in the TCC allows parties to bring a case on for trial more quickly than ever before, the likely reality is that the courts will be left with the high value, multi-party and complex disputes going forward. These are the cases that remain difficult to settle and for which alternative dispute resolution is more problematic.


The general impression is that the number of arbitrations has fallen by around one third over the last 10 years. Institute of Civil Engineers ("ICE") arbitrations have fallen steadily from 21 in 2000 to only three in 2005. RIBA arbitrations have declined from 53 in 2000 to 32 in 2005.

This move away from arbitration is reflected in the JCT 2005 suite of contracts. The default position under the JCT 1998 wording (applicable unless the parties contract otherwise) was that the parties would be obliged to arbitrate rather than initiate court proceedings. That position has been reversed in the 2005 JCT. Disputes will now be litigated through court proceedings unless the parties expressly state otherwise. Around 80 per cent of construction contracts in the UK are based on the JCT standard form contract and so this shift is likely either to reflect or bring about changes in industry practice.

In 2004, the Society of Construction Arbitrators launched a new "100 day" arbitration procedure, designed to offer a mid-way ground between adjudication and litigation, with the benefits of a binding decision, the protection of the Arbitration Act 1996 and an arbitrator empowered to award costs. It remains to be seen how popular it will become. The most likely cause for a resurgence in arbitration could be the confidential nature of the proceedings. In October 2006, the court rules were amended to allow access to statements of case (i.e. pleadings) by non-parties (although this is currently subject to an application for judicial review of the change). For disputes with commercial sensitivities, this could be a factor.


Adjudication has been, and remains, a popular means of resolving disputes between parties to construction contracts. The Chartered Institute for Arbitrators ("CIArb") has continued to report a fairly steady uptake of their construction adjudication services (DRS-CIArb). The number of adjudications in which ICE has been involved has fluctuated between around 100 in 2000 and 85 in 2005. RIBA reports figures ranging from 250-300 over the last six years, with a slight drop over the last two years.

In our view, adjudication will continue to dominate. The right to use this procedure is implied into construction contracts pursuant to the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. It offers claimants the opportunity of achieving resolution of a dispute within 28 days on an economic basis. It allows for awards (on a range of matters) to be obtained while a project is ongoing. Multiplex, the Australian construction company adjudicated seven separate disputes with the Wembley stadium developer during July and August 2006.

Whilst adjudication was never intended by Parliament as a mechanism for dealing with complex disputes, it is (perhaps wrongly) being used for this purpose. CIB v Birse (2004) confirmed that substantial claims, including those against construction professionals, can be dealt with through the adjudication process, provided the adjudicator is able to reach a fair decision within the time allowed by the parties. From an insurer’s perspective, the possibility of an enforceable decision being obtained against a construction professional within such a short time period reinforces the need for the policy wording to contain adequate notice provisions for Adjudication Notices.

Dispute Boards

This mechanism involves the appointment of an impartial panel (combining lawyers and engineers) at the outset of a project, who then visit the site around three or four times a year to deal with any disputes that may be brewing. Decisions made are temporarily binding (subject to challenge by court or arbitration proceedings).

The use of the World Bank’s concept of DBs to resolve disputes is now accepted by the industry and is commonplace, with FIDIC, ICC and ICE including DBs in its standard forms. The UK construction industry was able easily to take on the DB system following their earlier use and acceptance of the adjudication system and the notion of a temporarily binding decision. DBs can include a number of disputes at any one time, and commencement of court or arbitration proceedings will not stay a DB decision. They are proving successful and will likely continue to find favour on large projects.


The JCT 2005 wording now expressly provides for the possibility of resolution by mediation. Despite this, the number of construction mediations has fallen. This is contrary to the general trend that reflects a rise in the number of mediations as a whole.

The most recent results from the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution ("CEDR"), which handles around one third of the overall number of mediations in the UK, reveal that there were 693 mediations in 2004, of which 42 (i.e. six per cent) were in the construction field. In 2003, CEDR was involved in 631 mediations, of which 57 (i.e. nine per cent) related to construction. The most obvious reason for the decline in construction mediations, against the trend, is the availability of the adjudication process.

Running from 1 June 2006, the specialist judges from the TCC are participating in a 14- month pilot of the TCC’s new Court Settlement Process. This is a voluntary process where the judge acts as mediator to try and facilitate a resolution of the dispute. He can, at the request of the parties, also provide his assessment of the merits of the dispute and potential settlement levels. This is akin to the conciliation process which is referred to in the ICE standard wording. Conciliation is a more evaluative form of mediation where, if the parties cannot agree a settlement, the conciliator will make recommendations for the resolution of the dispute. However, the process is voluntary and the conciliator’s recommendations will not be binding in the absence of agreement by the parties.

The Standard Wordings






Dispute Board

JCT 1998






JCT 2005






























1. Implied into all written construction contracts by s.108 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996.

2. Under JCT 1998, Clause 41B provides that the parties should arbitrate rather than litigate. However, if Clause 41B is deleted, JCT 1998 provides that the parties should determine their dispute by legal proceedings.

3. Under JCT 2005, the default position is that the parties should litigate rather than arbitrate. Article 8 (the arbitration clause) can be incorporated if the parties so choose.

4. Clause 66(2) and (3) allows a further option of disputes being referred to the Employer’s Representative for determination.





  • Inexpensive and quick
  • Decision can lead to resolution
  • Expert adjudicator
  • Detailed written reasons given
  • Parties can agree it is private/confidential
  • May not be suitable for low value disputes as the adjudicator’s fees could be disproportionate
  • May not be suitable for complex disputes as the timetable may be oppressively fast
  • Adversarial
  • Not suitable for multi-party disputes
  • Award may not create a legal liability triggering an indemnity; this may result in insurance difficulties in the event of insolvency prior to enforcement.
  • Arbitration

    • Flexible procedure, ad hoc arbitration can be agreed
    • Arbitrator’s decision is final (subject to appeal to court)
    • Detailed written reasons given
    • Expert arbitrators available including TCC judges
    • Private/confidential
  • Restricted possibility of appeal
  • Procedure becoming more formalized
  • Adversarial
  • Potentially costly and time-consuming
  • Litigation

    • Court rules limit the possibility for protracted litigation: active case management procedures
    • Detailed consideration of all aspects of the dispute
    • Detailed judgment
    • Wide range of possible remedies
    • Suitable for multi-party disputes
  • Costly
  • Time-consuming
  • Rigid procedural rules
  • Parties will need to have at least considered alternative dispute resolution before coming to trial
  • Adversarial
  • Public
  • Dispute Boards

    • Function is to ‘nip in the bud’ issues before they become disputes
    • Deals with issues before parties become entrenched
    • Allows complaints to be voiced
    • Expert Board members including engineers and lawyers
  • Conclusion is only temporarily binding
  • Not enforceable
  • Requires Board to be in place at commencement of project
  • Scheduled site meetings only about three times a year
  • Mediation/ Conciliation

    • Inexpensive and quick
    • Helps maintain commercial relationship
    • Private/confidential
    • Expert mediator may be a judge of TCC (proposal under ‘Court Settlement Process’)
    • Can encompass wide settlement options e.g. apologies, promise of future business
  • May not be suitable if parties’ positions are too different
  • Relies on parties’ agreement - so no binding decision if parties cannot agree
  • 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