Briefing: The role of the Technology and Construction Court in Alternative Dispute Resolution

IF 1.3 Q3 MANAGEMENT
A. Agapiou
{"title":"Briefing: The role of the Technology and Construction Court in Alternative Dispute Resolution","authors":"A. Agapiou","doi":"10.1680/jmapl.22.00044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The construction industry is highly litigious and disputes can be costly, not merely in a financial sense but also in terms of the breakdown of otherwise valuable relationships due to the conflict. While arbitration and adjudication are commonly used in the construction sphere as dispute resolution tools, the adversarial nature of such processes may hold deleterious consequences for parties in terms of financial costs, delays, risks and loss of business. It was not until the late 1980s that it was realised that conventional litigation for construction disputes was far too cumbersome and expensive. Arbitration was the traditional method for the resolution of construction disputes for many years, until the introduction of a range of Alternative Dispute Resolution techniques, adjudication and the introduction of pre-action protocols in litigation. The English Courts have also proven eager to embrace ADR during the early stages of litigation proceedings, particularly when litigation costs will exceed the amount in dispute. This briefing note examines the role of the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) in Alternative Dispute Resolution.","PeriodicalId":44163,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Management Procurement and Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Management Procurement and Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1680/jmapl.22.00044","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The construction industry is highly litigious and disputes can be costly, not merely in a financial sense but also in terms of the breakdown of otherwise valuable relationships due to the conflict. While arbitration and adjudication are commonly used in the construction sphere as dispute resolution tools, the adversarial nature of such processes may hold deleterious consequences for parties in terms of financial costs, delays, risks and loss of business. It was not until the late 1980s that it was realised that conventional litigation for construction disputes was far too cumbersome and expensive. Arbitration was the traditional method for the resolution of construction disputes for many years, until the introduction of a range of Alternative Dispute Resolution techniques, adjudication and the introduction of pre-action protocols in litigation. The English Courts have also proven eager to embrace ADR during the early stages of litigation proceedings, particularly when litigation costs will exceed the amount in dispute. This briefing note examines the role of the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) in Alternative Dispute Resolution.
简报:技术与建筑法院在替代性争议解决中的作用
建筑行业是一个非常爱打官司的行业,纠纷的代价可能很高,不仅在经济上,而且在冲突导致其他有价值的关系破裂方面。虽然仲裁和裁决通常被用作建筑领域的争议解决工具,但此类程序的对抗性可能会在财务成本、延误、风险和业务损失方面给当事人带来有害后果。直到20世纪80年代末,人们才意识到,传统的建筑纠纷诉讼过于繁琐和昂贵。多年来,仲裁一直是解决建筑纠纷的传统方法,直到引入了一系列替代性争议解决技术、裁决和在诉讼中引入行动前协议。事实证明,英国法院在诉讼程序的早期阶段,特别是在诉讼费用将超过争议金额的情况下,热衷于采用ADR。本简报探讨了技术和建筑法院(TCC)在替代性争议解决中的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
32
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信