Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
Find up-to-date guidance on points of law and then easily pull up sources to support your advice with Lexis PSL
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) announced recently that it is planning to draft a set of international commercial dispute board rules that can be used on any medium- to long-term project, whether construction, IT, commercial or otherwise. If involved in the contract project from the outset, dispute boards are able to intervene early when issues arise and propose solutions before the parties positions have grown entrenched. Accordingly, dispute boards can be a useful tool for avoiding and resolving disputes.
In this article, LexisPSL Arbitration contributors Joseph Tirado (Partner), Matthew Page (Of Counsel) and Daniel Meagher (Associate) of Winston & Strawn provide an overview of the use of dispute boards in international disputes, and discuss the key components of dispute board procedure, the similarities to and differences from arbitration as well as the advantages and disadvantages of using dispute boards.
Dispute boards are boards of one or several individuals who determine disputes in connection with a contract.
Dispute boards are typically agreed by the parties to long-term contracts as a method of resolving disputes without resort to arbitration or litigation proceedings. Dispute board panels can consist of specified individuals appointed at the outset of a contract project (a standing dispute board) or can be appointed on an ad hoc basis when a dispute arises.
Dispute board panellists tend to be drawn from a wider range of professional backgrounds than arbitrators. Whereas arbitrators are typically lawyers, dispute board panellists can be, for example, engineers, accounting experts or other specialists depending upon the relevant industry. Lawyers are also frequently appointed as dispute board panellists.
Dispute boards are most frequently used in international construction and infrastructure projects. The recent CIArb consultation (which ends on 21 November 2013) also demonstrates that the scope for using dispute boards in projects across other industry sectors is currently the subject of some debate.
Most dispute boards will issue a decision, which will become final and binding if neither party objects to that decision. If a party objects to a decision of a dispute board (within a set time period), the dispute will proceed to arbitration or litigation, depending on the terms of the contract.
Depending on the applicable institutional rules of procedure, as well as the agreement of the contractual parties, dispute boards can issue interim-binding decisions or non-binding recommendations.
A non-binding recommendation is, as its name suggests, not binding upon the parties at the time it is issued. However, such a recommendation becomes binding if neither party files a notice objecting to the recommendation (often referred to as a notice of dissatisfaction) within the relevant time period. If such a notice is filed, then the recommendation has no effect and the parties' dispute will be finally determined by arbitration or litigation proceedings. Whether or not the dispute proceeds to arbitration or litigation proceedings will depend upon what is agreed by the parties (most often in the underlying contract).
By contrast, an interim-binding decision is binding from the time it is made through to the filing of an objection to the decision, and if such an objection is filed, the decision remains binding until the dispute is finally resolved pursuant to arbitration or litigation proceedings.
In either case of an interim-binding decision or a non-binding recommendation, an objection to the decision or recommendation of the dispute board is typically referred to as a notice of dissatisfaction. The time limit for lodging such a notice is typically prescribed by the relevant institutional rules or the contract (see below).
The term 'dispute boards' is a generic term, but in fact there are different types of dispute boards referred to by different names, operating under different institutional rules of procedure and with different key characteristics. Generally, there are two key types of dispute boards: dispute adjudication boards (DABs) and dispute review/resolution boards (DRBs).
DABs are boards that issue interim-binding decisions and DRBs are boards that issue non-binding recommendations.
Similar to international arbitration, a number of institutions offer a standard set of procedural rules for resolution of disputes by use of a dispute board. These institutional rules provide a framework for parties for ease of agreement or incorporation into the relevant contract, and in order to help provide structure for the dispute board procedure.
The key dispute board institutions include the Dispute Resolution Board Foundation (DRBF), the American Arbitration Association (AAA), the International Federation of Consulting Engineers (commonly referred to as FIDIC), the Institute of Civil Engineers (ICE) and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC).
Different institutions have adopted different types of dispute boards into their rules, most notably distinguished by whether such boards issue a non-binding recommendation (and are therefore a DRB) or interim-binding decisions (and are therefore a DAB).
DRBF and AAA adopt DRBs into their rules. In contrast, the standardised FIDIC contracts and the ICE dispute board rules adopt DABs. The ICC offers a choice of three types of dispute boards, including DRBs and DABs (the third type is called a Combined Dispute Board, which is a board that normally issues recommendations but can issue decisions in specified circumstances).
There are some similarities between the dispute board process and arbitration:
However, while there are some similarities between dispute boards and arbitration panels, there are important differences in the way in which they function and the impact of any final determination or award:
As with any type of alternative dispute resolution, the dispute board procedure comes with advantages and disadvantages.
Advantages of dispute boards include:
Disadvantages of dispute boards include:
The above advantages and disadvantages will be amplified by the particular contractual context and should be considered in light of the anticipated contractual relationship between the parties and execution of the underlying contract project.
Dispute boards can be a useful mechanism for resolving disputes, which arise during the lifetime of a contract, in particular in the context of international construction and infrastructure projects. They offer the opportunity to appoint a mixture of lawyers and industry specialists, and depending on the dispute board rules adopted can result either in recommendations that can help guide the parties prior to becoming binding, or interim-binding decisions, which provide a more immediate, firm ruling on where the parties stand. Dispute boards offer an opportunity for contractual parties to work together and negotiate outcomes of relatively minor disputes so that all parties involved may benefit from a successful contractual project.
It is important for parties and their lawyers to assess at the outset of a project whether to incorporate dispute boards into the contractual documentation. It will depend upon the type of project, the type of contract, and the parties involved. It may be that another form of dispute resolution, such as arbitration, would be more appropriate. It is an issue for parties and their counsel to carefully consider at the earliest possible stage, so that they are prepared to engage with the appropriate dispute resolution mechanism in the event of a dispute (or disputes) later in the contractual relationship.
Produced in partnership with Joseph Tirado, Matthew Page and Daniel Meagher of Winston & Strawn LLP
This article was first published on Lexis®PSL Arbitration on 7 November 2013. Click here for a free 24 trial of Lexis®PSL.
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
**Trials are provided to all LexisPSL and LexisLibrary content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial. See our full terms here.
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
Barry specialises in international arbitration and commercial litigation. He trained and practised at Jones Day before joining Pinsent Masons. At LexisNexis, Barry is Head of Arbitration and Head of the Lexis®PSL Dispute Resolution Group.
In practice, Barry’s work included commercial, aviation and technology arbitrations pursuant to international arbitral rules, involving UK and international clients. He also has a background in general commercial, civil fraud and IT litigation, including experience before the High Court. While in private practice, Barry worked with a broad range of clients from the private and public sectors.
At LexisNexis, when not focused on the strategic development and operational requirements of the Dispute Resolution Group, Barry’s content work focuses on the law and practice of international commercial arbitration and investment treaty arbitration. In addition to his work for Lexis®PSL, Barry contributes to the LexisNexis Dispute Resolution Blog and New Law Journal on litigation and arbitration matters
0330 161 1234