Originally from the American Journal of Construction Arbitration & ADR

I.   INTRODUCTION 

An ongoing project of the International Bar Association’s International Construction Projects Committee is a country-by-country survey of ADR in construction based on a standard set of questions. For some U.S. lawyers, many of the authors’ answers will be familiar. Others will find that the responses have valuable new information.  All will find the questions themselves of interest, not least because of the assumptions they reflect (e.g., that use of FIDIC contract forms is the norm, that statutory adjudication is common in many jurisdictions, and that tribunals frequently appoint their own experts). As U.S. construction clients and their lawyers increasingly “go global,” an appreciation of the (sometimes very different) assumptions clients and lawyers in other countries have can provide an important advantage in resolving disputes.  While the answers may be correct as written, the area is constantly in evolution, and parties must double-check rules before agreeing to use them, in order to establish their applicability and current text.

A.   Background

1.1 Which type of dispute resolution is most often used in construction matters in your jurisdiction? Can you give reasons why one type of dispute resolution is preferred above another? If there have been changes in preference in the past ten years, what has caused this?

Most construction disputes that are not settled through informal negotiations between the parties are resolved by mediation. If the parties fail to reach a settlement through mediation, the dispute will be resolved either through court litigation or binding arbitration.