Search results

In general, all differences between the Employer and the Contractor are firstly addressed by the Engineer, usually under Sub-Clause 3.7 [Agreement or Determination]; if the Parties have confidence in the Engineer’s capability to act fairly, many differences will be finally settled under the Sub-Clause 3.7 procedure. However, if either of the Parties is dissatisfied with a determination by the Engineer, a Notice of Dissatisfaction (a NOD, see Sub-Clause 1.1.57) can be filed; thereafter, either Party may proceed in accordance with Sub-Clause 21.4 [Obtaining DAAB’s Decision], see Sub-Clause 3.7.5 [Dissatisfaction with Engineer’s determination]. The dispute resolution procedure under the 2017 edition is outlined in Figure 20B. The first two Sub-Clauses of Clause 21 [Disputes and Arbitration] deal with the formation of the Dispute Avoidance/Adjudication Board (Sub-Clause 21.1 [Constitution of the DAAB]), including how to move forward with the DAAB if either of the Parties fail to appoint a member of the DAAB (Sub-Clause 21.2 [Failure to Appoint DAAB Member(s)]). Sub-Clause 21.3 [Avoidance of Disputes] describes the DAAB’s role in avoiding the escalation of any issues or disagreements into Disputes. Sub-Clause 21.4 [Obtaining DAAB’s Decision] outlines the procedure before the DAAB in respect of the resolution of Disputes. Sub-Clause 21.5 [Amicable Settlement] includes an invitation for the Parties to resolve disagreements about a decision from the DAAB amicably, while Sub-Clause 21.6 [Arbitration] provides the ultimate procedure for resolution of Disputes, arbitration. Sub-Clause 21.7 [Failure to Comply with DAAB’s Decision] entitles either Party to refer the failure of the other Party to comply with a decision from the DAAB. Finally, Sub-Clause 21.8 [No DAAB In Place] outlines the procedure to follow if no DAAB is in place when a Dispute arises (the Dispute may be referred directly to arbitration).

This study aims to develop a predictive model using machine learning techniques to forecast construction dispute outcomes, thereby minimizing economic and social losses and promoting amicable settlements between parties.

This study develops a novel conceptual model incorporating project characteristics, root causes, and underlying causes to predict construction dispute outcomes. Utilizing a dataset of arbitration cases in Türkiye, the model was tested using five machine learning algorithms namely Logistic Regression, Support Vector Machines, Decision Trees, K-Nearest Neighbors, and Random Forest in a Python environment. The performance of each algorithm was evaluated to identify the most accurate predictive model.

The analysis revealed that the Support Vector Machine algorithm achieved the highest prediction accuracy at 71.65%. Twelve significant variables were identified for the best model namely, work type, root causes, delays from a contractor, extension of time, different site conditions, poorly written contracts, unit price determination, penalties, price adjustment, acceptances, delay of schedule, and extra payment claims. The study’s results surpass some existing models in the literature, highlighting the model’s robustness and practical applicability in forecasting construction dispute outcomes.

This study is unique in its consideration of various contract, dispute, and project attributes to predict construction dispute outcomes using machine learning techniques. It uses a fact-based dataset of arbitration cases from Türkiye, providing a robust and practical predictive model applicable across different regions and project types. It advances the literature by comparing multiple machine learning algorithms to achieve the highest prediction accuracy and offering a comprehensive tool for proactive dispute management.

The purpose of this study is to conduct a comprehensive systematic literature review using bibliometric approach to investigate the academic structure of World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement research.

The study examines the bibliographic information for 1,858 articles from Scopus and the Australian Business Deans Council-indexed journals published between 1995 and 2024 using Dimensions.ai and Google Scholar search engines. Exploratory-cum-descriptive research design with bibliometric approach is used to answer the stated literature review research questions.

The data shows a gradual decline in WTO-Dispute Settlement System (WTO-DSS) research relative to the total international business area in the three decades. Developed countries appear as key contributors to the research, with the USA and the UK standing out as the most productive and influential research countries. The study shows a significant change in the focus of this research corpus from legalized to non-legalized approaches, with a greater emphasis on transparency and environmental sustainability. The research identifies global politics and international trade law as influential subjects in the discipline.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the study is a first of its kind where bibliometric approach has been used to study the evolution of WTO-DSS literature. The study adds to the understanding of WTO Dispute Settlement research patterns and recommends future research options.

States have intervened with legislation to improve cashflow within construction project supply chains. The operation of the UK’s Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 leads to payment obligations stated either as a contract administrator’s certificate (or equivalent) or an adjudicator’s decision. The purpose of the intervention would be defeated unless there are speedy ways of transforming these pieces of paper into real money. The combination of the legislation, contractual provisions and insolvency law has produced a minefield of complexity concerning enforcement of payment obligations stated in these documents. Unfortunately, the knowledge and understanding required to navigate these complexities have been sorely lacking. The purpose of this paper is to plug this gap.

Legal research methods and case study approaches, using relevant court decisions as data, were adopted.

The enforcement method advised by the court is the summary judgment procedure provided under the Civil Procedure Rules. An overdue payment obligation, either under the terms of a construction contract or an adjudicator’s decision, amounts to a debt that can be the subject of insolvency proceedings. Although the insolvency enforcement method has been successfully used on some occasions, using it purely as a debt collection weapon would be inappropriate and likely to be punished by the court.

The paper contributes to knowledge in two ways: (i) it maps out the factual situations in which these payment challenges arise in language accessible to the construction industry’s professions; and (ii) comparative analysis of payment enforcement methods to aid decision-making by parties to construction industry contracts. It is relevant to the other common-law jurisdictions in which similar statutory interventions have been made.

The construction industry is complex, human-intensive and driven by monetary values. Hence, disputes are widespread. Initial conflicts among parties may develop into a disastrous dispute that costs the project success and good relationships and affects stakeholders' expectations. There has been a focus on causes of construction-related disputes, and studies over the past three decades have attempted to identify a more comprehensive list of reasons for disputes. Some of these studies' limitations were geographical, project delivery methods and project types. The purpose of this study is to identify the most recent and conclusive list of causes of disputes based on current literature by undertaking a systematic literature review (SLR).

Considering the large number of studies that focused on causes of disputes, this study aims to develop a comprehensive list of causes, using a SLR, as it ensures that all previous articles in multiple databases are reviewed to produce a comprehensive outcome. A six-stage SLR was followed from background study to analysis and reporting.

Not surprisingly, the number of publications has increased over time, most from the Middle East region. The interconnected nature of the causes was widely emphasised. The SLR has produced eight common core causes of disputes. They are: poor contractual arrangements, employer-initiated scope changes, unforeseen site changes, poor contract understanding and administration, contractor’s quality of works, the inability of the contractor to achieve time targets, non- or delayed payments and poor quality of design. The majority of previous authors realised that disputes could be avoided by parties’ involvement during the early stages, avoiding being opportunistic and acting collaboratively.

Even though numerous studies have been carried out to identify the causes of disputes in the construction industry, none did a SLR. This study aggregates all the previous studies that focused on construction-related disputes systematically. Categorising causes based on the party primarily responsible help various stakeholders by providing a distinct list of factors to avoid that contribute to disputes.

Clause 1 [General Provisions] contains the provisions that in many contracts are bundled together under the ‘miscellaneous’ or ‘other provisions’ heading and includes a list of definitions, some interpretation principles, rules on communication between the Parties, documents forming the Contract, assignment, confidentiality etc. But Clause 1 also contains other provisions, like the Employer's right to use documentation and other deliverables provided by the Contractor (in other contracts usually referred to as a license to use), and a substantive Sub-Clause on limitation of liability.

Clause 3 [The Engineer] contains the speci?c provisions for the Engineer, including the general requirements for the Engineer and their representative(s) and assistants, the replacement of the Engineer, the duties and authority of the Engineer and - importantly - the Engineer's role when managing the project, e.g. through instructions. In the 2017 edition, the Engineer's role as a ?rst venue for resolution of differences or disagreements between the Contractor and the Employer has been vastly expanded and the Sub-Clause covering this issue now runs to more than three pages rather than the two short paragraphs in the 1999 edition.

This paper aims to examine the options available to arbitrators when they suspect money laundering during arbitration proceedings, considering their compatibility with fundamental principles and concepts of arbitration.

Using a doctrinal analysis approach, the paper draws on legal principles, antimoney laundering regulations and relevant literature to explore the topic. It considers relevant international treaties, standards set by the financial action task force on money laundering, cases and arguments from legal analysts and experts.

The paper identifies three options for arbitrators: disregarding suspicions, initiating an investigation or terminating the proceedings. Disregarding suspicions is deemed inappropriate, as it may facilitate the concealment of financial crimes. Initiating an investigation is seen as a preferable option, aligning with the arbitrator’s role and the public interest in nullifying contracts linked to criminal conduct. Terminating the proceedings is not recommended, as it contradicts the principle of natural justice. The paper emphasizes the importance of reasonable grounds for suspicions, notifying the parties, and allowing them to address the concerns.

This paper contributes to the existing literature by comprehensively analyzing the compatibility of these options with arbitration principles and concepts. It underscores the need for clear laws and directives to guide arbitrators in addressing financial crimes within the arbitration process, maintaining a balance between party autonomy and preventing the misuse of arbitration for illicit activities.

This study aims to evaluate the drivers influencing the integration of distributed ledger technologies (DLTs) in the Nigerian construction industry to provide a comprehensive analysis of the factors that shape the adoption and utilization of this transformative technology within the sector.

This objective was achieved through a quantitative research approach, utilizing a structured questionnaire to systematically gather data from various stakeholders in the Nigerian construction sector. Data obtained were analyzed using descriptive statistics, alongside inferential statistical techniques like the Kruskal-Wallis H-test, the Shapiro-Wilk test and exploratory factor analysis.

The most highly ranked drivers for DLT within the construction industry are security and fraud resistance, traceability and transparency, government support, compliance and reporting and trust building. Further analysis unveiled five distinct factors of application areas, namely: technological and operational drivers, economic and financial drivers, regulatory and government drivers, collaborative and stakeholder drivers and environmental and sustainability drivers.

The practical implications emphasize the need for construction industry stakeholders to focus on security, transparency and trust-building when considering DLT adoption. This study also offers valuable insights for investors and technology providers seeking opportunities in the Nigerian construction sector.

This study sheds light on the factors most critical for DLT adoption in the Nigerian construction sector. Unlike previous research, this study pinpoints security and fraud resistance, along with traceability and transparency, as the most influential drivers. This highlights the Nigerian construction industry’s particular vulnerability to fraud and its emphasis on clear audit trails.

In construction projects, underpayments can be recognised as one of the significant drawbacks that impact the success of a project. Research into underpayments is considered ambiguous and provides a limited reflection of the issue, which makes it complicated to trace how it originates in the first place. This study aims to examine the causes that lead to underpayments and develop a holistic synthesis of underpayments for subcontractors in the lifecycle of a construction project.

An open-ended and closed-ended questionnaire was used to collect the data using purposeful sampling with 28 construction stakeholders who ranged from main contractors, subcontractors and others (Small medium enterprises SMEs, Consultancies, Clients etc.). Data collected was analysed to trace drivers and the impact of underpayment and suggested mitigation strategies to be identified whilst viewing the perspectives of a main contractor and subcontractor.

The findings show that the most prominent driver for underpayments is variation disputes followed by cash flow. The research also suggests mitigation strategies such as collaborative working, more robust budget control and early identification of risks as potential remedies to overcome the underpayment issue. The research concludes with a framework that elicits the complexity underlying underpayments for subcontractors in construction projects.

The research evolves the understanding that underpayment is a complex phenomenon, relying heavily on the data/information exchange mechanism between the main contractor and subcontractors. This research provokes the need to understand underpayment further so it can be mitigated.