International Construction Law Review
DISPUTE BOARDS: IT’S TIME TO MOVE ON
CHRISTOPHER DERING*
MA, Solicitor and Partner, Masons; Member, Masons Thelen Reid LLP
1. DEVELOPING AND REFINING DISPUTE BOARDS AND THEIR JURISPRUDENCE
1.1. How far have we come?
Over the years, this Review
has provided a platform for a considerable number of contributions on the subject of dispute boards.1
In general terms, and appropriate to their timing, these and other contributions have tended to focus on providing introductions to, and descriptions of, the subject with periodic forays into the world of comparison with other dispute resolution methods, such as the UK’s statutory adjudication scheme. Underlying much of what has been written, perhaps not surprisingly, has been a keenness to promote the concept, in differing variants.
After so much debate, and with so much experience of the use of dispute boards being available, the case for at least considering their inclusion in the inevitable multi-tiered dispute resolution mechanism in any construction or engineering contract of size is surely well-established. No-one can doubt the very significant role which dispute boards not only can play but are
playing in managing disputes on major projects around the world.2
The time has now come to move on. First, there is scope for developing the jurisprudence surrounding dispute boards and tackling some of the difficult legal issues which can arise, especially in circumstances where the determinations of boards have not been accepted by the parties as the final resolution of the matters in question; and, secondly, refining the dispute board concept, looking at features which work well and those which would benefit from improvement.
1.2 Developing a jurisprudence for dispute boards
As regards developing a jurisprudence for dispute boards, there is a tendency in some quarters to reject the notion that there should even be a
* The author would like to recognise the valuable comments on this article made by colleagues Ray Werbicki, Fraser McMillan and Poly Kiosses. Views and errors are, of course, the author’s own.
1 Including (with no disrespect to those omitted): G Lodigiani (1985–86) 3 ICLR 498; A Pike [1993] ICLR 157; G Jaynes [1993] ICLR 452; A Pike [1993] ICLR 467; G Jaynes [1996] ICLR 17; C Seppala [1997] ICLR 443; P Gerber [2001] ICLR 122; J Groton, R Rubin and B Quintas [2001] ICLR 275.
2 Definitions and descriptions of dispute boards abound in the literature. A serviceable, working description can be found on the website of the Disputes Resolution Board Foundation: www.drb.org
Pt 4]
Dispute Boards: It’s Time to Move On
439