Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

If there has been a breach of contract or there is a tortious issue in construction proceedings (i.e. professional negligence) then the innocent party will normally wish to commence proceedings to obtain a remedy for any loss they have suffered as a result. There are numerous means through which construction disputes can be resolved – two of the principles means are, however, litigation through Her Majesty’s Court and Tribunal Service (HMCTS) or arbitration. Arbitration is a private forum in which an independent contractor is contracted to make a decision on the dispute. The outcome of the arbitration process is binding and final on both parties. Both litigation and arbitration have their various advantages and disadvantages. This post will therefore look at these relative advantages and disadvantages and examine the circumstances in which it may be appropriate to issue a claim in one forum rather than the other.

The first thing to consider in an examination of whether litigation or arbitration is appropriate is whether there is an “arbitration clause” in the contract between the parties engaged in the dispute. If there is such a clause then the parties must use the arbitration process rather than litigate through the courts, unless they agree otherwise. If there is no “arbitration clause” then the parties are free to choose which method they deem suitable in the circumstances. Should an “arbitration clause” exist then if one party attempts to issue in Court rather than resort to arbitration the other party can make an application to stay the claim so that arbitration can take place. Under s.9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 the Court must stay the process if it is satisfied that there is such an “arbitration clause” (if specific circumstances do not exist that prevent the matter being stayed).

Secondly, it is difficult to make a direct comparison between arbitration and litigation as there are many forms of arbitration. The form of arbitration appropriate in the circumstances will therefore change the relative advantages or disadvantages of both processes.

The advantages and disadvantages of both are discussed below:

Cost

Litigation can be an expensive process. Lawyer’s fees, court fees, and expert witness reports can quickly rack up the costs – not to mention the cost of a trial itself. Arbitration can potentially offer a cheaper way of resolving a legal dispute, for example in a short informal process without a formal hearing. However, if the matter is complex then it can potentially be far more expensive than the court process as the parties must pay for the arbitrator’s time and hiring the venue.

Speed

Litigation can potentially be a laborious, time-consuming and elongated process, particularly in factually complex cases. Arbitration offers a potentially quicker means of resolving a construction dispute. However, whether it is in fact quicker depends upon the particular facts of the case, the willingness of the parties to adhere the set timetable, and the character of the arbitrator. If the parties regularly miss deadlines and the arbitrator is unwilling to take measures to enforce compliance then it can unnecessarily elongate the process. Judges are generally more likely to be ruthless in enforcing case timetables through the case management process.

Complexity

Arbitration is suitable for construction disputes that are more technically complex as the arbitrator will (normally) be extremely experienced and have the requisite technical qualifications to make a considered decision. A Judge may not possess the necessary skill to make decisions of fact in the circumstances (although Judges in the TCC do have plenty of experience in sitting on construction disputes).

However, where disputes do turn on a point of law rather than an issue of technical expertise then it may be preferable to have the matter determined by a legally qualified Judge.

Decisiveness

It is a common perception (justified or not) that arbitrators tend to “split the difference” in cases rather than coming to a more “extreme” conclusion. If your client therefore believes that they are 100% justified in their case it may be preferable to pursue the matter through the normal Court process than through arbitration.

Joining 3rd parties

In arbitration, only the parties to the relevant contract are bound in the event of a legal dispute (although some construction contracts – e.g. JCT SBC 05 – do include provisions for enabling proceedings to be joined).

Convenience

Arbitration can be arranged to be convenient for both parties – for example holding hearings at the weekend or in the evenings. However, this convenience is often nullified if there are lawyers and experts working for both parties. Convenience is therefore only really of relevance in simple construction disputes.

Privacy

It is not easy to avoid publicity in large commercial arbitrations. However, litigation is likely to involve a greater risk of publicity, adverse or otherwise. Arbitration generally therefore is the better option if parties wish to keep their dispute private.

Expediency

Arbitration is generally less confrontational than litigation. If the parties have a continuing contractual (or otherwise professional) relationship then it will be preferable to resolve the construction dispute without further acrimony.

Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

Share →

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 

Our awards

Request a callback

Your name

Your email

Your telephone number

Contact us

Please feel free to discuss your own position and concerns. Contact your nearest office on:

T: 020 3397 3603
E: enquiries@redmans.co.uk
W: www.redmans.co.uk

Testimonials

4.76 Average

164 Reviews

Samantha K

Absolutely brilliant thank you. Caroline Lewis is a legend

Posted 2 weeks ago

Anonymous

The legal advice was clear and helpful.

Posted 2 weeks ago

Davinder P

Good Service

Posted 2 weeks ago

Adrian V

I was using Redmans services for a Settlement Agreement. Very quick and professional service. The outcome was favourable and I was very pleased with the amendments and results. Pretty glad to recommend them for any type of legal advice.

Posted 2 weeks ago

Anonymous

Very responsive, efficient, clear and supportive. Thank you! Highly recommend.

Posted 2 weeks ago

Tiago S

Chris was always prompt to help me with legal matters that are beyond my comprehension and very helpful leasing with my former employer. I would recommend Redmans Solicitors to everyone who needs help.

Posted 2 weeks ago

Anonymous

Fast and professional advice tailored to what was needed. Thanks for your help Chris Hadrill and team.

Posted 2 weeks ago

Peter S

Really pleased with the outcome and the advice I had from Chris and Sacha.

Posted 3 weeks ago

Harika A

Redmans solicitor's helped me with my settlement agreement, Chris has been very helpful throughout the process.He was very prompt in his responses and made my settlement look simple.Special thanks to Caroline for her efficient communication, thorough explaination of contract terminology and negotiations.I highly reccommend Redmans solicitors for anyone seeking employment related legal help.

Posted 3 weeks ago

Anonymous

Good and quick service

Posted 3 weeks ago

Ricky D

Very satisfying to be assured of such attention and professionalism.

Posted 3 weeks ago

Anonymous

Excellent service - thankyou

Posted 3 weeks ago

Anonymous

Efficient, timely and friendly support and advice

Posted 3 weeks ago

Ahmed S

They are always on hand when you need them and provide support even when its not necessary.

Posted 3 weeks ago

Nemen S

Wonderful experience.Chris was very responsive and provided an excellent service. A real professional who I would recommend to anyone

Posted 3 weeks ago

Anonymous

Their guidance was clear and they provided me with all the information I required. Friendly yet professional

Posted 3 weeks ago

Anonymous

Chris @ Redmans assisted me with an employment issue. Firstly, he was very proactive in coming back to my initial enquiry and then helped to clearly lay out the options that I had in relation to my position. He then assisted with the preparation of my case, which led to a very satisfactory outcome. I would highly recommend the quality of service & professionalism offered by Redmans Solicitors.

Posted 3 weeks ago

Anonymous

Great service

Posted 3 weeks ago

Anonymous

Chris was very effective and decisive in dealing with my matter. I felt guided, and the pressure to make decisions was taken off my shoulders; he knew what needed to be done and I was happy to follow his advice. The result of the legal dispute was a great success for me. He is also kind and personable. The only thing that I would say it could be improved, is the accuracy of cost estimation at the beginning: not many activites, that could not have been forseen had to take place, but costs went up more than double in the end. Overall very good and trustworthy. I would definately recommend and use Redmans services again.

Posted 3 weeks ago

Liz P

An excellent professional service was provided by Chris Hadrill and Mel Chin. Efficient and trustworthy - would highly recommend this company.

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Redmans Solicitors were great. They were able to advice me quickly and efficiently! I would recommend them, as a good solicitors to use.

Posted 1 month ago