Construction arbitration

This subtopic forms part of the Arbitration module. An equivalent subtopic can be found in the Construction module: Arbitration for construction lawyers—overview.

An introduction to arbitration for construction lawyers

What is arbitration and how does it differ from other dispute resolution procedures? This Practice Note looks at the general principles behind the arbitration process, including those set out in the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) and compares it to litigation and adjudication. It also considers the use of arbitration for disputes in the construction industry. For further information, see Practice Note: An introduction to arbitration for construction lawyers.

The pros and cons of arbitration in construction disputes

This Practice Note considers the advantages and disadvantages of selecting arbitration as an alternative means of dispute resolution to litigation, looking at whether arbitration is a more effective and efficient method for resolving a dispute than litigation in construction disputes. In particular, it looks at the myths surrounding arbitration

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Arbitration News

Drawing the line—court review of arbitral institutions’ administrative decisions in Brazil (Vale v B3 & others)

Arbitration analysis: Reversing a first-instance judgment that had dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction and legal standing, the São Paulo Court of Appeals held that Brazilian courts may review administrative decisions rendered by arbitral institutions prior to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. The dispute concerned a decision by the President of the Market Arbitration Chamber (CAM) applying Article 3.6 of its Rules to appoint all three arbitrators and to disregard respondent Vale S.A.’s prior appointment of a co-arbitrator. The court held that the provision presupposes both a plurality of parties and an actual ‘absence of consensus’, which was not present in the case at hand, as the multiparty claimants acted jointly and with convergent interests up to that stage of the proceedings. It further held that the statutory right of each party to appoint a co-arbitrator under the Brazilian Arbitration Act cannot be displaced by institutional discretion in such circumstances. The decision reinforces the judicial control over institutional acts that affect fundamental procedural rights in arbitration and clarifies the São Paulo Court of Appeal’s stance on the distinction between jurisdictional and administrative acts in arbitration. Written by Renato Stephan Grion, partner at Pinheiro Neto Advogados, and Thiago Del Pozzo Zanelato, senior associate at Pinheiro Neto Advogados.

View Arbitration by content type :

Popular documents