Explaining the Ineffectiveness of Construction Arbitration

Abstract

The ineffectiveness of dispute resolution remains a major concern to many users of construction arbitration. Despite several complaints regarding high costs, delays, and rejected awards, there is no evidence that any studies have systematically investigated and explained the ineffectiveness of construction arbitration. This multiple qualitative case study aimed at addressing this research gap. Rich qualitative data based on 13 semistructured interviews and documentary analysis in five exemplifying cases indicated that all five cases were ineffective because of poor-quality awards, time inefficiencies, and cost ineffectiveness. Such ineffectiveness was attributed to unfavorable outcomes, which were perceived to be unfair in cases in which tribunals did not exercise their powers in balancing process control that was skewed in favor of the winning parties. The findings also pointed toward mismatches between case complexity and the competence of the tribunals, whose limited functional skills restricted their ability to properly guide the disputants on efficient approaches to the presentation of evidence. These findings provide a nuanced understanding of how these factors collectively interact in explaining the ineffectiveness of construction arbitration.