Resolution of Construction Disputes Arising from Major Infrastructure Projects in Developing Countries – Case Study of Ghana
Cast your vote
You can rate an item by clicking the amount of stars they wish to award to this item.
When enough users have cast their vote on this item, the average rating will also be shown.
Your vote was cast
Thank you for your feedback
Thank you for your feedback
MetadataShow full item record
AbstractThis study undertook a critical examination of developing countries’ experiences of infrastructure-related construction dispute resolution using Ghana as a case study. It investigated the dispute resolution processes and procedures which parties to infrastructure construction disputes employed to address such disputes. To gain a better understanding of the dispute resolution processes, the study also assessed the legal framework for procurement and contract formation and other contextual issues which influenced parties’ dispute resolution choices. Consequently, strategies for efficient and effective dispute resolution were developed. The main rationale for the study was the need for effective and efficient dispute resolution processes in the context of infrastructure projects in developing countries. The literature indicated that disputes often occurred on such projects in developing countries that were resolved at great cost mainly by arbitral tribunals in the developed world. However, there was limited information on the extent to which other dispute resolution mechanisms were utilised prior to resort to international arbitration. The study adopted a qualitative research approach informed by the interpretivist philosophical paradigm. Data was collected from fifty-six interviewees from the State as the Employer and foreign contractors through semi-structured interviews and documents and analysed using qualitative data analysis procedures associated with grounded theory research such as coding, constant comparison, memoing and diagramming, and doctrinal legal analysis. It was found that engineer’s determination, negotiation and international arbitration were the most used dispute resolution mechanisms. Others such as mediation were rarely used. The dispute resolution processes were characterised by high cost, low satisfaction with outcomes and negative effect on relationships. It was also found that the extant dispute resolution processes were the product of the nature of the parties, the context in which they operated and their responses to the context. Factors such as lack of coordination among the Employer’s sub-units, human resource constraints and political interference had varying negative impacts on dispute occurrence, dispute resolution system design and the dispute resolution processes. To deal with these challenges and achieve efficient and effective dispute resolution processes, four sets of remedial strategies (condensed into a model called the Dispute Resolution Efficiency Cycle (DREC)) were proposed. The study has provided empirical evidence which has addressed some of the gaps identified in the literature on issues such as absence of information on pre-international arbitration dispute processes. The study has also highlighted the impact of context and dispute system design on dispute resolution. Contributions to practice included diagnosing challenges with the extant dispute resolution processes and proposing possible remedial strategies.
PublisherUniversity of Wolverhampton
TypeThesis or dissertation
DescriptionA thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the University of Wolverhampton for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Mediation Outcomes: Lawyers’ Experience with MediationBrooker, Penny; Lavers, Anthony (Pepperdine University School of Law, Malibu, CA, 2005)This paper reports on the final phase of a three-year study into the role of lawyers in the development of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) following the implementation of the Civil Procedure Rules in 1999 and draws comparisons between US and Canadian studies. The paper centres on the use of mediation, which is recognised as the pre-eminent ADR process in the UK. Data are analysed from 30 interviews with specialist commercial and construction-related lawyers who have utilised mediation in the dispute resolution process. Interviewees were selected from respondents to a national survey of lawyers specialising in commercial and construction-related practice. Whereas reaching settlement is typically regarded as the measure of success, this research focuses on other "mediation outcomes" experienced by solicitors and barristers, the majority of whom are repeat-users of the process. The data reveal that achieving settlement in a timely and cost-effective manner is among the chief advantages mediation has over litigation, but a number of other benefits can make the process an eligible option in dispute resolution. In particular, the process of mediation allows the parties to focus on or narrow the issues in dispute. Lawyer-interviewees also report tactical advantages from engaging in mediation. These range from providing the opportunity to examine the strengths and weaknesses of the case to testing witnesses and evidence. The data suggest lawyers are developing new practices in mediation, such as proposing the process in order to provide proof to the courts of willingness to compromise or participating in mediation in order to send messages to the opposition. Mediator-interviewees report a trend in mediation where cases are more difficult to settle and the participants more cognisant of mediation tactics.
The use of arbitration in the construction industry in England and Wales: an evaluation of its continuing role following the Arbitration Act 1996Henry Fisher, William (2017)Due to the influence of the construction industry on the country’s economy, resolution of disputes is very important. The Arbitration Act 1996 was passed to remedy the complaints that had made arbitration unpopular. Comments from academics and practitioners indicated that construction arbitration remained unpopular and procedural innovation anticipated had not materialised. This study considers arbitration in the construction industry in England and Wales and evaluates its use and role since the passing of the Arbitration Act 1996. It also explores the potential use of arbitration against the use of litigation, statutory adjudication, mediation and expert determination having regard to variables of size of claim and dispute. A pragmatic theoretical perspective was followed, using a survey strategy. Initially a quantitative methodology was used, with structured questionnaires sent to users of arbitration, their legal advisers and construction arbitrators. To provide extension and clarification of matters revealed from questionnaires, interviews were conducted with construction arbitrators and construction lawyers, thereby incorporating a qualitative methodology. The study shows a significant decline in the use of construction arbitration, but comparing the two periods investigated, there was less of a decline for the more recent period, compared to the earlier period. As a dispute resolution method, arbitration was considered neutral, being neither poor, nor excellent. Arbitration’s standing, overall, is poor; however, for claims between £1 million and £10 million it is similar to the other methods referred to above. Positive influences towards choosing arbitration are that arbitration is private, providing fairness, allowing control of the process with an award that is final. Negative influences are that arbitration is costly, complex with procedures styled on litigation, subject to delays and confidence issues with arbitrators’ decisions. Cost and duration of arbitration remain the most problematic features, however the investigation suggests that users and particularly their lawyer advisers are reluctant to implement cost saving procedures.
Commercial and Construction ADR: Lawyers’ Attitudes and ExperienceBrooker, Penny; Lavers, Anthony (Sweet & Maxwell, 2001)Findings of large scale survey of solicitors and barristers specialising in commercial and construction fields on their familiarity with ADR, particularly mediation and their perception of its usefulness and effectiveness.