header-logo header-logo

29 May 2015 / Martin Burns
Issue: 7654 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Profession , ADR
printer mail-detail

Dodgeball

Don’t resolve disputes, avoid them, says Martin Burns

Transport for London (TfL) and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) have developed a practical conflict avoidance and early intervention procedure for construction and engineering contracts, which is designed to save money and preserve commercial relationships.

Disputes on major construction and engineering projects can cause immense harm to long term relations between employers and contractors.

Resolving a dispute is more difficult when a difference of opinion between an employer and contractor is not addressed early. In such circumstances parties frequently descend into the trenches. Their views become rigid and, in many cases, parties become so manifestly inflexible that meaningful dialogue is almost impossible.

Traditional methods for resolving disputes can be very expensive and inordinately slow. The commercial and human consequences of litigation, arbitration and adjudication can often be intolerable. This is usually the case even when parties manage to settle their differences before a judgment; award or decision has been given on a dispute.

Avoidance v resolution

In respect of major infrastructure projects, particularly those which

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll