The latest issue of the Building and Construction Law Journal (Volume 27 Part 5) contains the following material:

EDITORIAL

  • Two hats equally is impossible

Articles

Dispute resolution in the Australian construction industry – is there hope for arbitration? – Jeremy Coggins

The construction industry is particularly prone to commercial disputes. Due to the lengthy and costly nature of litigation, the construction industry initially turned to arbitration for the efficiencies and other advantages it offered as a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). However, over the past 20 years, arbitration procedure has come under intense criticism for increasingly mirroring formal court proceedings and, as such, losing its time and cost advantages. In order to address the problems which have beset arbitration, in 2010 new uniform domestic commercial arbitration legislation was agreed upon by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in Australia. This article considers the advantages for which the construction industry initially chose arbitration as its primary form of ADR, and the reasons for its “downfall”. It also provides an overview of the new unified domestic commercial arbitration legislation and its likely effects.

To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale order form and email it to [email protected].

Enforcing a DAB decision in arbitration proceedings – Gordon Smith and Glen Rosen

The Singapore Court of Appeal in the recent decision of CRW Joint Operation v Pt Perusahaan Gas Negara (Persero) TBK examined the issue of enforcing a dispute adjudication board (DAB) decision under cl 20 of the FIDIC’s 1999 Red Book which has not become final and binding. The Court of Appeal ruled that in such situation where a DAB’s decision is challenged, the arbitral tribunal should issue an interim award pending a fresh hearing of the substantive issues. The Court of Appeal held that the arbitral tribunal’s failure to review the merits of the DAB’s decision and allow the defendant the opportunity to defend its position amounted to a breach of the rules of natural justice.

To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale order form and email it to [email protected].

REPORTS

  • British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd v Laurie
  • McNab Constructions Australia Pty Ltd v Queensland Building Services Authority

For the pdf version of the table of contents, click here: BCL Vol 27 Pt 5 Contents.