How Final Should Dispute Resolution Be Essay

1541 Words7 Pages
HOW FINAL SHOULD
DISPUTE RESOLUTION BE?

Intro
The number of disputes in the construction industry is rising dramatically but it’s with the secondary disputes, or ‘disputes about disputes’, that this paper is concerned. While they have a professional and social purpose in ensuring that dispute resolution complies with the applicable rules, they naturally give rise to the question addressed in this paper: to what extent should challenges to the process or the result be allowed; or ‘How final should dispute resolution be?’ (Uff, 2010).
The first point to make is that the standard forms then in common use contained serious restrictions on what could become the subject of a formal dispute. For example, up to 1980, the JCT forms contained
…show more content…
Arbitration

arbitration law, and it’s increasing importance in the wider fields of dispute, is stated that no award or decision will be allowed to stand where the tribunal has committed what was once known more directly as ‘misconduct’ now called ‘serious (procedural) irregularity’ (Uff, 2010). Take a case which would not have got off the ground, yet if the arbitrator explained everything, the court would see it his way (Uff, 2010).
The principle still holds well in the background of both arbitration and adjudication decisions, where natural justice requires that the parties have the opportunity to deal with all the material which the tribunal intends to take into account. The case is also relevant to the issue of whether and to what extent an arbitrator or adjudicator can make use of his own expertise in a specialist field (Uff, 2010).
The practice on granting leave to appeal was subsequently developed by the House of Lords and later conserved in the Arbitration Act 1996 (Uff, 2010).

Adjudication
A process that has dominated construction dispute resolution in the UK for the past 12 years or so and has spread, in several diverse forms of varying attraction to clients.
This process was intended to achieve a ‘pay now argue later’ system, similar to that
Get Access