‘Alternative dispute resolution’ (ADR) denotes a variety of methods and procedures employed to settle a dispute without resorting to the conventional trial process. Their origins date back around 3,800 years to the belligerent kingdoms in present-day Syria. Nonetheless, the last five decades have witnessed the worldwide implementation of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). This is partially a response to the anticipated delay in securing a resolution via arbitration or litigation, as well as the substantial expenses associated with both processes. The feverish economic environment induced by COVID-19 has elicited a fresh emphasis on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) as a method for expeditiously and economically resolving conflicts. Disagreements frequently occur in the infrastructure sector due to the complexity, scale, and participation of several stakeholders in the projects being executed. Conventional methods of conflict resolution, such as litigation and arbitration, can prove to be time-consuming, costly, and adversarial. Consequently, they may exacerbate business relationships and extend project timelines. In addressing issues within the infrastructure industry, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) techniques provide an effective and collaborative approach. This chapter analyses various alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods, their advantages, and their potential integration into legal frameworks to enhance dispute resolution.
A diverse array of stakeholders participates in the development of infrastructure projects. The stakeholders comprise government agencies, consultants, engineers, and contractors, including subcontractors. A multitude of issues, including but not limited to delays, cost overruns, contractual ambiguities, design faults, and unforeseen site conditions, may lead to disputes. Consequently, these disputes may delay project timelines, escalate costs, and foster antagonistic relationships, thereby complicating future collaboration. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) offers a more amicable and commercially viable method for resolving conflicts. It facilitates the resolution of disputes while preserving corporate relationships and assuring project continuity. The significance of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in the infrastructure sector is widely recognised. Various jurisdictions have integrated alternative dispute resolution (ADR) into their legal frameworks, either requiring or promoting its application in construction contracts. Industry-standard contracts, such as those established by FIDIC, NEC, and JCT, include provisions for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) to facilitate the swift resolution of problems without engaging in lengthy and costly litigation. This chapter aims to deliver an exhaustive overview of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods, encompassing their use in infrastructure matters, along with the benefits and challenges associated with their implementation.
This chapter examines the application of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in addressing conflicts within the worldwide construction and infrastructure sector. We provide a comprehensive analysis of the six primary options, evaluating their respective strengths and drawbacks both individually and in relation to arbitration and litigation. We commence with the non-binding procedures that facilitate the parties in achieving consensus: negotiation, mediation, early neutral appraisal, and the mini-trial. We subsequently examine the primary temporary binding processes: contractual and statutory adjudication. [4] The utilisation of dispute boards in various forms constitutes a method of contractual adjudication and is addressed in a distinct, devoted chapter. Ultimately, we examine an ADR approach that yields a binding resolution: expert determination.