Comparison of dispute boards and statutory adjudication in construction

Abstract

The objective of this study is to present the issues encountered by construction industry practitioners resolving disputes through the adoption of the dispute board (or DB) and statutory adjudication (or SA). This research is significant due to the often adversarial working environment in a typical construction and engineering project, as well as substantial adverse consequences resulting from disputes that have not been adequately resolved between two or more of its stakeholders. This paper presents the historical background and aims of and main principles behind the introduction of DB and SA. Stakeholder practitioners involved in three case study projects were then interviewed to reveal issues encountered with their adoption of DBs and/or SAs. Their perceived effectiveness, as well as suitability, to resolve disputes within construction then underwent comparative analysis. Barriers were found which had contributed towards a general apprehension by practitioners in the major case study projects to adopt either of these dispute-resolution methods. This paper suggests that these barriers significantly relate to the perceived formality of their procedures, potentially expensive legal costs involved and subsequent harm to future working relationships.