Dispute Resolution in the Construction Industry

Citation

Harvey, P.F. (2001), "Dispute Resolution in the Construction Industry", Structural Survey, Vol. 19 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/ss.2001.11019aae.003

Dispute Resolution in the Construction Industry

Dispute Resolution in the Construction Industry

Department of Environment, Transport and the RegionsThomas Telford Ltd1999ISBN 0727728369£50

This book is a report on research, carried out by the authors and funded by the Department of the Environment, into current procedures, practice and attitudes appertaining to dispute resolution in the construction industry.

The writers combine hands-on experience of actual dispute resolution with impressive legal and academic qualifications. If nothing else, the book is an excellent example of good report writing and presentation clearly laid out, clearly written, and with statistical information presented in a comprehensible manner.

The main body of the book, in textbook form, provides a lucid and useful description of the various resolution options: negotiations, medication and conciliation, expert determination, adjudication, arbitration and litigation. In each case the procedures are explained and the authors discuss the functions and aspirations of the participants.

While the book is up-to-date with regard to the state of the law, it predates the increasing popularity of adjudication under the 1996 Act and only hints at the absolute determination of the courts to enforce adjudicators' decisions. However, the process of adjudication under the Act is well explained, and could serve as a working guide.

The authors include an interesting introduction to the causes and evolution of construction disputes in general, and to the attitudes and behaviour of the parties involved. Understanding the nature of such disputes must be a major contribution towards their avoidance and resolution, and I found this section the most interesting and useful.

The authors base their "conclusions", that negotiation and mediation are emerging as the favoured options while arbitration and litigation are seen as the least attractive, on a 6.5 per cent response (490 replies) to a questionnaire addressed to a broad range of disciplines within the industry. Given the variety of reasons that people have for actually responding or not to this kind of survey, one is tempted to question the significance of such research. Are not the conclusions obvious anyway, in that they simply comprise the popular view? For whose benefit was the research carried out? For whom is the book written?

I would like to see more positive advice from the authors, based on their personal experience, professional knowledge and the research, on the most suitable resolution procedure for different circumstances rather than the manipulation of fragmented comments from people far less well informed.

A final point the authors quote replies to their questionnaire verbatim. In a number of cases the language is quite unsuitable for a book of this nature, and by its conclusion there is a tacit acceptance of the "macho" attitude which is, I suggest, one of the main causes of the "dispute culture" which so bedevils the industry. Including it here does not help.

P.F. Harvey