{"id":904750,"date":"2025-09-02T16:41:34","date_gmt":"2025-09-02T22:41:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=904750"},"modified":"2025-09-02T16:41:37","modified_gmt":"2025-09-02T22:41:37","slug":"arbitration-construction-disputes-suitability-up-front-considerations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/arbitration-construction-disputes-suitability-up-front-considerations\/","title":{"rendered":"Construction Disputes: Suitability And Up-Front Considerations For Arbitration Rule Selection"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

J. Laurens Wilkes, Michael J. Stepek, Gustavo J. Membiela and Imad Khan | Winston & Strawn<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The selection of arbitration<\/a> for complex construction projects continues to increase[1]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0\u2013 and, for good reasons: its finality, confidentiality and rules are suitable for complex, multiparty, and technically demanding matters. The flexibility of arbitration \u2013 tailoring procedures, selecting technically qualified arbitrators and adapting the process to the needs of the project \u2013 often makes it an effective forum for managing the unique challenges of construction conflicts.[2]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0Knowing that a potential dispute frequently involves intricate factual investigations, overlapping contractual relationships and the need for decisions in a timely manner to keep projects on track, parties often choose arbitration up front as the contractual dispute resolution process on construction projects.[3]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Arbitration’s procedural flexibility allows for tailored mechanisms such as joinder <\/em>to address complex multiparty arrangements, bifurcation of proceedings<\/em> to resolve threshold issues efficiently, and structured discovery and document exchange<\/em> processes suited to the needs of the dispute. The use of experts<\/em>, whether party-appointed or tribunal-appointed, helps clarify technical matters critical in construction claims. Furthermore, the availability of interim measures<\/em> and emergency arbitration<\/em> ensures that parties can obtain urgent relief when necessary, thereby maintaining the momentum of ongoing construction work while the arbitration progresses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With that in mind, it is important to consider which rules may be most suitable for each particular project. Along these lines, this chapter examines and compares key practices across major arbitral bodies \u2013 the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR) and the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) \u2013 including joinder, bifurcation of proceedings, discovery and document exchange, use of experts, interim measures and emergency arbitration. The aim is to help practitioners assess the institutional rules that may be most suitable for their construction-related project and how up-front choices at the time of contracting may greatly influence any later disputes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Joinder of necessary parties and multiparty arbitrations<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Construction projects often involve multiple parties (e.g., owners, contractors, subcontractors and equipment suppliers) and multiple contracts, each with separate dispute resolution terms. Delays, constructive changes or unforeseen conditions in any one part of a construction project can lead to cost overruns for any number of the involved parties that have different contracts.[4]<\/sup><\/a> Contractors may need to ensure that liability for a subcontractor\u2019s work can be transferred to the appropriate party; therefore, to resolve disputes effectively and avoid conflicting outcomes, parties may want to join all parties involved in a claim into a single proceeding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Joinder permits a third party to become part of an ongoing arbitration, either as a claimant or a respondent, depending on the nature and type of claim.[5]<\/sup><\/a> This can occur at the request of an existing party or through the third party\u2019s own initiative.[6]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Joinder is distinct from multiparty arbitrations, which is another option for the arbitration of construction disputes. In multiparty arbitrations, multiple claimants bring separate yet related claims against a respondent, and these claims are submitted collectively to an arbitral tribunal at the outset of the proceedings and do not require any additional consent beyond the original agreement to arbitrate disputes under the contract, which is required for any joinder.[7]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Major arbitral institutions share a common goal of procedural efficiency and therefore recognise joinder as a mechanism to bring necessary parties in a dispute to the same proceeding.[8]<\/sup><\/a> Any request for joinder requires consent by all, or some of, the parties, regardless of the arbitral institution;[9]<\/sup><\/a> however, each institution adopts distinct procedural rules about when and how to allow additional parties to join an arbitration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For instance, Article 7 of the ICC 2021 Arbitration Rules (the ICC Rules)requires an existing party to submit a formal request for joinder to the ICC secretariat to add a third party to the arbitration before the confirmation or appointment of any arbitrator.[10]<\/sup><\/a> No party may be joined after the confirmation or appointment of any arbitrator unless (1) all parties agree otherwise, including the additional party, or (2) the tribunal (once constituted) and the additional party, agree.[11]<\/sup><\/a> The latter half of the rule is an \u2018exception to the requirement of unanimous consent by the parties to joinder of new parties\u2019.[12]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In practice, this means that an existing party may join a third party at the outset of the arbitration, despite objections by the opposing party. After the confirmation or appointment of any arbitrator, however, joinder of a consenting third party requires consent by the opposing party or consent by the tribunal once constituted. Joinder of a non-consenting third-party is not allowed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Similarly, Article 8 of the ICDR International Dispute Resolution Procedures (the ICDR Rules) generally restricts joinder after the appointment of an arbitrator unless (1) there is unanimous party consent, including the additional party, or (2) the tribunal (once constituted) and the additional party, approve.[13]<\/sup><\/a> Once the arbitral tribunal is constituted, \u2018even if a party (ie, claimant or respondent) objects to the joinder of a new party, the tribunal can nevertheless order the joinder of an additional party provided that doing so would serve the interests of justice and the additional party consents to joinder\u2019.[14]<\/sup><\/a> Joinder of a non-consenting third-party after the appointment of an arbitrator is not allowed under the ICDR rules either.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In contrast, Article 22 of the LCIA Arbitration Rules 2020 (the LCIA Rules) and Article 17(5) of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 2021 (the UNCITRAL Rules) offer more flexibility in terms of the timing of the request to join a third party. The LCIA Rules allow joinder at any time after the request for arbitration is received electronically by the LCIA registrar provided the tribunal (once constituted), the third person and the applicant party have \u2018consented expressly to such joinder\u2019.[15]<\/sup><\/a> Further, if the new party agrees to accept the arbitration agreement, there is no requirement that the joined party has to be a party to the arbitration agreement under which the arbitration was commenced.[16]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The fact that the parties agreed to LCIA arbitration (including Article 22) permits joinder of a new party even if there is no existing arbitration agreement between the various parties.[17]<\/sup><\/a> The LCIA Guidance Note for Parties and Arbitrators provides the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

How the arbitration then proceeds will be a matter for the Arbitral Tribunal which will also depend on what capacity the third person is joined to the arbitration and at what stage of the proceedings they are joined. For example, the third person could be joined as an additional Respondent with respect to specific claims or as a Respondent to defend cross-claims.[18]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The UNCITRAL Rules also permit joinder once the arbitral tribunal is constituted, but, unlike the LCIA Rules, the third party must be bound by the arbitration agreement;[19]<\/sup><\/a> therefore:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

joinder under [UNCITRAL] Article 17(5) is not contemplated where there are multiple contracts between multiple parties, with multiple different arbitration agreements . . . Article 17(5) only provides for joinder where the additional party is a party to \u2018the arbitration agreement\u2019 \u2013 not a party to another arbitration agreement, even if that agreement is compatible with the arbitration agreement.[20]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Parties can only work around this restriction by explicitly authorising joinder under the UNCITRAL Rules when drafting their arbitration agreements.[21]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Article 18 of the SIAC Arbitration Rules 2025 (the SIAC Rules) stands out for its dual-track approach: joinder can be requested at any time before or after the constitution of the tribunal and by both parties and non-parties alike.[22]<\/sup><\/a> Under the SIAC Rules, \u2018additional parties can be joined to an arbitration when either (a) the additional party to be joined is prima facie bound by the arbitration agreement, or (b) all parties, including the additional party to be joined, have consented to the joinder\u2019.[23]<\/sup><\/a> The SIAC Rules do not, however, extend the possibilities of joinder to cases where a non-party to an arbitration agreement seeks to join an arbitration unilaterally, without the consent of the parties to that agreement or to situations of forced joinder.[24]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In summary, while all institutions aim to balance efficiency with fairness, the ICC and ICDR rules generally encourage joinder before the appointment of arbitrators, the LCIA and UNCITRAL rules have more flexibility for joinder after the tribunal is constituted (under certain conditions), and the SIAC Rules offer a hybrid model that accommodates both.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In construction arbitrations, the procedural flexibility of the LCIA, UNCITRAL and SIAC rules to join parties before or after the constitution of the tribunal can be beneficial in circumstances when the issues and responsible parties only become clear over time. Further, the fact that there is no requirement under the LCIA Rules that the joined party be a party to the arbitration agreement under which the arbitration was commenced is an advantage in construction arbitrations where more than one arbitration agreement may be at issue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The arbitration agreement that the parties draft at the time of entering into contractual relations determines how the arbitration process proceeds in each institution.[25]<\/sup><\/a> In the context of construction arbitrations, parties should consider including a tailor-made procedural regime for joinder or intervention in the arbitration agreement or, alternatively, a provision that all the parties involved in the project enter into a separate and stand-alone \u2018umbrella agreement\u2019, which explicitly allows for all related parties to be joined together.[26]<\/sup><\/a> \u2018The cost of setting up a second or even third tribunal will be saved even if the one arbitration actually conducted will be rather more complex.\u2019[27]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

To conclude, if there is a potential for a multiparty dispute, careful consideration should be given to rule selection and drafting so that the parties obtain their bargained-for dispute process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bifurcation<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Construction disputes often involve complex factual and legal issues, including questions of liability or causation. In large-scale infrastructure projects, resolving all issues simultaneously can be inefficient and costly and may unnecessarily prolong the arbitration. For example, a tribunal may be asked to determine whether a contractor is liable for delays before assessing the financial consequences of those delays.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In such cases, parties may seek to bifurcate the proceedings, dividing the arbitration into separate phases to address discrete issues sequentially. Bifurcation can promote procedural efficiency, reduce costs and potentially facilitate settlement by resolving threshold issues early in the process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bifurcation involves separating proceedings into different phases for the sake of efficiency.[28]<\/sup><\/a> This is appropriate if it allows arbitrators to focus on preliminary issues of which the \u2018resolution will avoid wasted effort and expense\u2019.[29]<\/sup><\/a> As a result, it is has become possible for cases to be bifurcated so that the tribunal may first analyse subjects like jurisdiction prior to liability or liability prior to quantum.[30]<\/sup><\/a> The rationale is the potential for time or cost savings by not requiring submissions on certain issues if there can be a preliminary decision on an foundational issue.[31]<\/sup><\/a> Nevertheless, the decision to bifurcate requires careful consideration, because there is potential that it could actually lengthen the arbitration process in particular circumstances.[32]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ICC, ICDR and SIAC rules explicitly permit bifurcation of proceedings, so long as the proceedings are made more efficient.[33]<\/sup><\/a> The ICC Rules provide for bifurcation proceedings if doing so would \u2018genuinely be expected to result in a more efficient resolution of the case\u2019.[34]<\/sup><\/a> The ICDR Rules allow bifurcation if it allows the tribunal to resolve issues that could \u2018dispose of all or part of the case\u2019.[35]<\/sup><\/a> The SIAC Rules similarly empower tribunals to bifurcate proceedings \u2018to focus their presentations on issues the determination of which could dispose of all or part of the case\u2019.[36]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The emphasis with bifurcation in these institutions is efficiency; therefore, if there is factual overlap on preliminary issues, duplicative briefing would be likely in a bifurcated proceeding.[37]<\/sup><\/a> In that case, the proceedings likely would not be bifurcated because it would more than likely slow down the proceedings; therefore, bifurcation is effective only in certain matters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although not mentioned explicitly, the LCIA and UNCITRAL rules permit bifurcation as part of the arbitral tribunal\u2019s inherent case management powers. Under the LCIA Rules, tribunals have broad discretion to manage proceedings, including determining the sequence in which issues are addressed \u2013 effectively allowing bifurcation where it promotes fairness and efficiency.[38]<\/sup><\/a> The UNCITRAL Rules, emphasise party consultation on procedural organisation, and tribunals may use case management tools to structure proceedings in phases.[39]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In all three frameworks, while the term \u2018bifurcation\u2019 is absent, the procedural flexibility afforded to tribunals allows for its use when it aligns with the goals of efficiency and fairness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Arbitral case law also has a framework for bifurcation, where the tribunal considers whether the issues to be bifurcated are (1) prima facie serious and substantial, (2) able to be examined without prejudging or entering the merits and (3) dispositive of all or an essential portion of the claimant\u2019s claims.[40]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In light of these considerations, bifurcation remains a valuable but context-dependent tool, requiring a nuanced evaluation of its potential impact on the arbitral process. When requesting bifurcation, parties often ask for early determination in the alternative. Taking this possibility into consideration, most of the arbitral rules provide for early dismissal as well.[41]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ultimately, when considering bifurcation, efficiency is key. Bifurcation is treated with varying degrees of formality across arbitral institutions. The ICC, ICDR and SIAC rules provide explicit frameworks that encourage bifurcation when it enhances procedural efficiency, particularly in resolving threshold issues early. In contrast, the LCIA and UNCITRAL rules rely on the tribunal\u2019s broad procedural discretion to achieve similar outcomes without expressly naming bifurcation. This flexibility can be especially useful in complex construction disputes, where early resolution of jurisdictional or liability issues may streamline the process. The choice to bifurcate in general rests on whether it will genuinely advance the arbitration\u2019s efficiency and fairness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Interim measures and emergency relief<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Interim measures exist to provide parties with relief or a remedy when called for by challenging and imminent circumstances often involving the preservation of evidence or the status quo or for providing security for costs.[42]<\/sup><\/a> Similarly, emergency measures include measures available to resolve urgent disputes that require a solution before a full tribunal can be constituted.[43]<\/sup><\/a> Construction disputes often require interim or emergency measures because of their unique needs where mid-project disputes arise. This type of relief may typically be requested of a court with jurisdiction or to the arbitral tribunal itself. Arbitral rules provide guidance on these measures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Across the spectrum of arbitral institutions, arbitral rules governing interim measures are relatively uniform. Arbitral rules generally give the tribunal broad discretion to grant relief[44]<\/sup><\/a> but specify that the powers are generally used for preserving evidence, providing security for costs or preserving the status quo.[45]<\/sup><\/a> In providing for these remedies, arbitrators, at their discretion, may issue awards or orders granting such relief.[46]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In arbitration, parties may also request interim relief from competent courts.[47]<\/sup><\/a> The rules of arbitral institutions generally provide that seeking interim relief from a court does not breach the arbitration agreement.[48]<\/sup><\/a> There are differences between the rules in respect of the timing and notice of these interim relief requests to courts: the ICDR, SIAC and UNCITRAL rules make no mention of timing limitations on interim measures requests to judicial authorities;[49]<\/sup><\/a> on the other hand, after the tribunal is constituted, the ICC and LCIA rules permit judicial requests for relief only in \u2018appropriate\u2019 or \u2018exceptional\u2019 circumstances, respectively.[50]<\/sup><\/a> Both institutions also require either notice or authorisation when judicial relief is sought.[51]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Similar to interim measures, major arbitral institutions may also provide for an emergency arbitrator to hear applications for relief before the arbitral tribunal can be constituted.[52]<\/sup><\/a> Emergency arbitrators are empowered to make rulings for provisional relief.[53]<\/sup><\/a> Depending on the institution, these rulings can be either orders or awards.[54]<\/sup><\/a> Some institutions, like the ICC, only permit emergency arbitrators to make orders, whose enforceability can be suspect under local laws.[55]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although binding on the parties, emergency arbitrator rulings can be modified, terminated or annulled by the fully constituted arbitral tribunal.[56]<\/sup><\/a> The ICC Rules also explicitly permit parties to opt out of emergency arbitration provisions,[57]<\/sup><\/a> which can be advantageous if pre-tribunal relief from courts appears preferable in those circumstances. As soon as the tribunal is constituted, the emergency arbitrator generally has no further role in the arbitration.[58]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The procedure for emergency measures depends on the arbitral institution. For example, emergency arbitrators under the ICC rules have 15 days to make a ruling after appointment, while under the LCIA and SIAC rules, emergency arbitrators have only 14 days.[59]<\/sup><\/a> The ICDR rules, on the other hand, have no explicit deadline for emergency measures.[60]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some institutions permit extremely expedited proceedings for emergency relief.[61]<\/sup><\/a> Specifically, Schedule 1 of the SIAC Rules permits a protective preliminary order application to be requested alongside a request for an emergency arbitrator.[62]<\/sup><\/a> This order, which can be made without notice to the other parties, must be determined within 24 hours.[63]<\/sup><\/a> Practitioners should note these deadlines and procedural possibilities when determining the institution that best suits their clients\u2019 needs as part of the up-front contractual dispute process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Document exchange<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The tasks of disclosing, producing and exchanging documents in construction arbitration can be particularly challenging given the length of construction projects and the breadth of possible documents associated with these projects, including invoices, receipts, site diaries, meeting minutes, plans, drawings, specifications and correspondence, and emails between multiple entities notwithstanding the parties to the dispute. To avoid large-scale common law type discovery, the rule-making bodies, along with the International Bar Association\u2019s Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration (the IBA Rules), seek to prohibit \u2018wholesale and indiscriminate production of documents by means of the common law process of discovery\u2019.[64]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Likewise, there are fairly strict limits on the documents that may be obtained from third parties, both in the arbitral rules themselves and in the various international legal systems. Each of these considerations should be noted up front in the contractual risk allocation. If a claim may involve numerous non-parties, careful thought is needed regarding how those documents may be obtained in a later arbitration. Further, if a party would not have access to the key project documents absent arbitration, this should be carefully evaluated as the chosen arbitration rules may restrict wholesale access.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All the arbitral institutions discussed in this chapter confer wide powers on a tribunal on discovery and document production. For example, the LCIA Rules provide the most detailed authority to tribunals to order discovery or disclosure from parties to an arbitration.[65]<\/sup><\/a> Articles 22.1, paragraphs (iii) to (v) empower the tribunal to do the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

to conduct such enquiries as may appear to the Arbitral Tribunal to be necessary or expedient[,] . . . to order any party to make any documents, goods, samples, property, site or thing under its control available for inspection by the Arbitral Tribunal, any other party, any expert to such party and any expert to the Tribunal[,] . . . to order any party to produce . . . documents . . . which the Arbitral Tribunal decides to be relevant.[66]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Under the ICC Rules, the tribunal has \u2018a wide discretion to decide rules of evidence\u2019[67]<\/sup><\/a> by giving the tribunal the power \u2018to establish the facts of the case by all appropriate means\u2019.[68]<\/sup><\/a> Similarly, the UNCITRAL Rules and the ICDR Rules also give power to the tribunal to \u2018require the parties to produce documents, exhibits or other evidence\u2019.[69]<\/sup><\/a> The SIAC Rules broadly give tribunals the power \u2018to conduct the arbitration in such manner as it considers appropriate\u2019.[70]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Under these rules, tribunals exert control over document disclosure and exchange in construction arbitration disputes to focus the document collection to the documents or categories of documents that are relevant and necessary to the dispute.[71]<\/sup><\/a> The IBA Rules are reflected in the various arbitral rules through relevance and materiality requirements[72]<\/sup><\/a> and provide a framework for tribunals to assess disclosure and production issues in disputes, \u2018including by providing greater guidance on legal privilege, a more prescriptive approach to evidence gathering and an express good faith requirement in the taking of evidence\u2019.[73]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Along with guidance from the IBA Rules, the arbitral institutions provide case management guidance to help control the voluminous document disclosure common in construction disputes. The ICC Rules provide case management techniques aimed at costs and avoiding overreach in the area of document production, specifically providing that parties limit \u2018requests to documents or categories of documents that are relevant material to the outcome of the case\u2019.[74]<\/sup><\/a> In particular, they promote the \u2018need for measures to be cost-effective\u2019, and part of the tribunal\u2019s duties is to \u2018ensure that the parties will manage and control e-disclosure in a cost-effective manner\u2019.[75]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ICC Rules do not prohibit voluminous electronic discovery of documents but instead provide that the process \u2018must be justified\u2019.[76]<\/sup><\/a> The LCIA Rules also provide that relevance is a key determiner of whether to order production of documents.[77]<\/sup><\/a> Likewise, the SIAC Rules give power to order documents that \u2018the Tribunal considers relevant to the case and material to its outcome\u2019.[78]<\/sup><\/a> Under the ICDR Rules, tribunals may order parties to produce documents deemed necessary or appropriate.[79]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Document disclosure under international arbitration rules can be streamlined yet effective for construction disputes. The various arbitration rules allow for the ordering of disclosure of documents that are relevant and material to the dispute. The relevance and materiality requirements help prevent requests for documents outside the scope of the dispute, thereby limiting the costs and difficulty of disclosing and producing voluminous document sets that are more common in court-based litigation. Notwithstanding the treatment of documents under the various rules, it is important to consider where documents may be located and who possesses them to ensure that the chosen dispute process will be able to reach them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Use of experts<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Parties to a construction dispute will almost certainly rely on expert evidence to present complicated facts and technical issues that typically arise in construction projects. Various expert opinions could be needed to support a party\u2019s claim or defence. For example, industry experts may be needed to establish exactly what \u2018accepted industry practice\u2019 is; programming and scheduling experts may be required to provide evidence about delay claims; accounting or quantum experts may be needed to give evidence on damages, and engineering experts may be required to provide evidence relating to defects or to decipher engineering standards.[80]<\/sup><\/a> Even if, in the context of international construction arbitration, tribunal members possess a certain degree of expertise, it is usually still necessary and common for experts with expertise in construction-related fields to provide the requisite evidence on both sides of the dispute.[81]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Arbitration rules, along with the IBA Rules, presume the use of experts and broadly allow parties to appoint experts. Under ICC Rules, the tribunal \u2018may decide to hear witnesses\u2019, which include \u2018experts appointed by the parties\u2019.[82]<\/sup><\/a> Similarly, the LCIA Rules on witnesses apply to \u2018any fact or expert witness on whose evidence a party relies\u2019.[83]<\/sup><\/a> The SIAC Rules give tribunals the power to direct \u2018parties to give notice of the identity of witnesses, including expert witnesses, whom the parties intend to produce\u2019.[84]<\/sup><\/a> The UNCITRAL Rules allow witnesses who give evidence to include \u2018expert witnesses, who are presented by the parties to testify to the arbitral tribunal on any issue of fact or expertise\u2019.[85]<\/sup><\/a> The IBA Rules provide the most in-depth guidance on party-appointed experts: \u2018[a] Party may rely on a Party-Appointed Expert as a means of evidence on specific issues\u2019, going so far as to outline certain requirements for expert reports.[86]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The institutions\u2019 rules also contemplate that tribunals may appoint experts, although parties from common law jurisdictions are often not comfortable with this arrangement.[87]<\/sup><\/a> The various rules provide robust directions on the use of these experts. Interestingly, the ICDR Rules are solely focused on tribunal-appointed experts[88]<\/sup><\/a> and only provide for party-appointed expert witnesses at the hearing \u2018to testify on the points at issue\u2019.[89]<\/sup><\/a> The provisions regarding tribunal-appointed experts require tribunals to consult with the parties before appointing the experts,[90]<\/sup><\/a> and these experts must \u2018be and remain impartial and independent of the parties\u2019.[91]<\/sup><\/a> The IBA Rules also provide detailed instructions on the appointment of these experts, in line with the other institutions\u2019 rules, as well as the contents of their expert reports.[92]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

If tribunal-appointed experts are used in a construction dispute, the rules give parties the opportunity to question these experts at the hearing and to present their own experts on relevant issues.[93]<\/sup><\/a> Despite all of this guidance, in practice, tribunal-appointed experts remain the exception in construction arbitration disputes, and tribunals typically only appoint experts if requested by a party or if the tribunal lacks the necessary expertise to make a decision concerning a relevant technical decision for an issue in which no other expert has been appointed.[94]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is typically great flexibility in how expert opinions may be presented to a tribunal \u2013 individual reports from each side, a joint report with disagreements noted, oral presentations, cross-examinations and even joint presentations and examinations (sometimes referred to as \u2018hot-seating\u2019 or \u2018hot-tubbing\u2019). Joint reports and concurrent testimony, like hot-tubbing, can help to identify areas of agreement and disagreement between parties and improve the tribunal\u2019s understanding of the issues in dispute.[95]<\/sup><\/a> The method and timing of presentations is generally left to the agreement of the parties and the discretion of the arbitrators \u2013 and for good reason: given that disputes evolve and are inherently difficult to predict, flexibility in the arbitral process on experts is an important benefit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

There is an oft-told refrain that every construction project is unique. The flexibility of arbitral rules lends themselves to addressing disputes that arise from unique situations; however, not all arbitral bodies apply the same rules, and not all rules cover the same issues or even how the parties may wish to allocate a particular risk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Up-front considerations of the arbitral rules that may best suit a potential dispute on a project and contracting for specific procedures on issues of importance to a party (e.g., expert processes and document disclosure) are key to ensuring a suitable framework if a dispute arises after the fact. A close examination of the points discussed in this chapter (and an easy reference chart below) will hopefully assist in this important selection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Arbitral rules for issues discussed<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Issue<\/th>ICC Rules<\/th>LCIA Rules<\/th>ICDR Rules<\/th>SIAC Rules<\/th>UNCITRAL Rules<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
Joinder<\/td>Article 7<\/td>Article 22.1(x)<\/td>Article 8<\/td>Article 18<\/td>Article 17(5)<\/td><\/tr>
Bifurcation and early dismissal<\/td>Appendix IV(a)<\/td>Article 22.1, paragraphs (vii) to (viii)<\/td>Articles 22(4), 23<\/td>Articles 32.6, 47<\/td>No explicit provision outside of tribunal discretion<\/td><\/tr>
Interim measures and emergency relief<\/td>Articles 28, 29, Appendix V<\/td>Articles 25, 9B<\/td>Article 27<\/td>Article 45, Schedule 1<\/td>Article 26<\/td><\/tr>
Document exchange<\/td>Article 25(1), Appendix IV(d)<\/td>Article 22.1, paragraphs (iv) to (v)<\/td>Articles 22(5), 24<\/td>Articles 32.2, 50.2(f)<\/td>Article 27(3)<\/td><\/tr>
Use of experts<\/td>Articles 25(2), 25(3)<\/td>Articles 20.1, 21<\/td>Article 28<\/td>Articles 40.1, 41<\/td>Articles 27(2), 29<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Acknowledgements<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The authors would like to acknowledge, with much appreciation, all the work and efforts by Rachael Thompson on this chapter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Endnotes<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0According to the 2019 Queen Mary International Arbitration Survey, 71 per cent of respondents reported using international commercial arbitration to resolve construction disputes \u2013 far outpacing other methods, such as negotiation (34 per cent), mediation (32 per cent) or statutory adjudication (17 per cent). See report, \u2018International Arbitration Survey \u2013 Driving Efficiency in International Construction Disputes\u2019, Queen Mary University of London and Pinsent Masons, 2019,\u00a0www.qmul.ac.uk\/arbitration\/research\/2019<\/a>(accessed 12 June 2025), p. 8. Institutional statistics further support this trend: in 2023, the most frequent type of contracts involved in International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitrations were construction and engineering contracts, which accounted for 21.2 per cent of all ICC arbitration cases. See report, \u2018ICC Dispute Resolution: 2023 Statistics\u2019, ICC,\u00a0www.iccwbo.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2024\/06\/2023-Statistics_ICC_Dispute-Resolution_991.pdf<\/a>\u00a0(accessed 12 June 2025), p. 13. This has been a consistent pattern for several years in the ICC, which saw 194 construction cases in 2020 (about 23 per cent of that year\u2019s caseload) and 186 cases in 2017 (23 per cent of all new cases). See report, \u2018ICC Dispute Resolution: 2020 Statistics\u2019, ICC,\u00a0www.iccwbo.org\/news-publications\/arbitration-adr-rules-and-tools\/icc-dispute-resolution-statistics-2020<\/a>\u00a0(accessed 12 June 2025); report, \u2018ICC Dispute Resolution: 2017 Statistics\u2019, ICC,\u00a0www.iccwbo.org\/news-publications\/arbitration-adr-rules-and-tools\/2017-icc-dispute-resolution-statistics<\/a>\u00a0(accessed 12 June 2025). Similarly, the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR) reported 113 construction cases in 2018, with a 10.6 per cent increase in civil construction disputes between 2016 and 2017. See infographic, \u20182018 ICDR case data infographic\u2019, ICDR,\u00a0www.icdr.org\/sites\/default\/files\/document_repository\/2018_ICDR_Case_Data.pdf<\/a>\u00a0(accessed 12 June 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2]<\/sup><\/a> Jane Jenkins, \u2018Chapter 9: Preparation and Collection of Evidence\u2019, in International Construction Arbitration Law<\/em>, Arbitration in Context Series, Volume 1 (3rd edn., Kluwer Law International 2021), Section 1.01.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[3]<\/sup><\/a> ibid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[4]<\/sup><\/a> Anjay Kumar Mishra and P S Aithal, \u2018Effectiveness of Arbitration in Construction Projects\u2019, International Journal of Management, Technology, and Social Sciences<\/em>, Vol. 7, Issue 1 (2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[5]<\/sup><\/a> Gary B Born, \u2018Chapter 18: Consolidation, Joinder and Intervention in International Arbitration\u2019, in International Commercial Arbitration<\/em> (3rd edn., Kluwer Law International, 2020), Section 18.01.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[6]<\/sup><\/a> ibid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[7]<\/sup><\/a> Jiawen Wang, \u2018Joinder Mechanism in International Commercial Arbitration: A Trend in the Digital Age?\u2019, International Journal for the Semiotics of Law<\/em>, Vol. 37 (2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[8]<\/sup><\/a> Jenkins (see footnote 2), \u2018Chapter 9: Preparation and Collection of Evidence\u2019, Section 7.03[C].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[9]<\/sup><\/a> id., Section 7.03[A].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[10]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0See ICC\u00a02021 Arbitration Rules<\/a>\u00a0(ICC Rules), Article 7(1).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[11]<\/sup><\/a> id., Article 7(5).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[12]<\/sup><\/a> Born (see footnote 5), \u2018Chapter 18: Consolidation, Joinder and Intervention in International Arbitration\u2019, Section 18.02[C][2][b].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[13]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0See ICDR\u00a0International Dispute Resolution Procedures<\/a>\u00a0(ICDR Rules), Article 8(1).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[14]<\/sup><\/a> Albert Bates, Jr, R Zachary Torres-Fowler and Hailey Barnett, \u2018Arbitration Update – The 2021 ICDR Arbitration Rules: a welcome update for international construction arbitration\u2019, Construction Law International<\/em>, Vol. 16, No. 2 (June 2021), p.8.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[15]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA)\u00a0Arbitration Rules 2020<\/a>\u00a0(LCIA Rules), Article 22.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[16]<\/sup><\/a> Born (see footnote 5), \u2018Chapter 18: Consolidation, Joinder and Intervention in International Arbitration\u2019, footnote 243.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[17]<\/sup><\/a> ibid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[18]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0LCIA\u00a0Guidance Note for Parties and Arbitrators<\/a>, Section 11.7.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[19]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0See UNCITRAL\u00a0Arbitration Rules 2021<\/a>\u00a0(UNCITRAL Rules), Article 17(5).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[20]<\/sup><\/a> Born (see footnote 5), \u2018Chapter 18: Consolidation, Joinder and Intervention in International Arbitration\u2019, Section 18.02[C][1].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[21]<\/sup><\/a> id., Section 18.02[C][1].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[22]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0See Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC)\u00a0Arbitration Rules 2025<\/a>\u00a0(SIAC Rules), Rule 18, paragraphs 1 and 10.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[23]<\/sup><\/a> Born (see footnote 5), \u2018Chapter 18: Consolidation, Joinder and Intervention in International Arbitration\u2019, Section 18.02[C][6][b].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[24]<\/sup><\/a> id., Section 18.02[C][4][b] (\u2018Forced joinder\u2019 means that \u2018only one of the existing parties to the arbitration (the applicant) and the party to be joined agree to such joinder.\u2019).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[25]<\/sup><\/a> Jenkins (see footnote 2), \u2018Chapter 9: Preparation and Collection of Evidence\u2019, Section 7.01.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[26]<\/sup><\/a> id., Section 7.03[A].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[27]<\/sup><\/a> id., Section 7.03[C].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[28]<\/sup><\/a> See<\/em>Florian Haugeneder, Emmanuel Kaufman, et al., \u2018Chapter 5: Evidence in Construction Disputes, C. Quantum\u2019, in Andreas J Roquette and Christopher Tom Prostler (eds.), International Construction Disputes: A Practitioner\u2019s Guide <\/em>(Hart Publishing, 2022), Section 4.3.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[29]<\/sup><\/a> Born (see footnote 5), \u2018Chapter 15: Procedures in International Arbitration\u2019, Section 15.08[Q].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[30]<\/sup><\/a> See ibid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[31]<\/sup><\/a> ibid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[32]<\/sup><\/a> ibid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[33]<\/sup><\/a> See, e.g., ICC Rules, Appendix IV(a); ICDR Rules, Article 22(4); SIAC Rules 2025, Article 32.6.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[34]<\/sup><\/a> ICC Rules, Appendix IV(a).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[35]<\/sup><\/a> ICDR Rules, Article 22(4).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[36]<\/sup><\/a> SIAC Rules 2025, Article 32.6.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[37]<\/sup><\/a> Born (see footnote 5), \u2018Chapter 15: Procedures in International Arbitration\u2019, Section 15.08[Q].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[38]<\/sup><\/a> LCIA Rules, Article 22.1(vii).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[39]<\/sup><\/a> UNCITRAL Rules, Article 9.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[40]<\/sup><\/a> Philip Morris Asia Limited v. The Commonwealth of Australia<\/em>, Permanent Court of Arbitration Case No. 2012-12, Procedural Order No. 8 Regarding Bifurcation of the Procedure, 14 April 2014, paragraph 109.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[41]<\/sup><\/a> ICC Rules, Appendix IV(a); LCIA Rules, Article 22.1(viii); ICDR Rules, Article 23; SIAC Rules 2025, Article 47.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[42]<\/sup><\/a> Jenkins (see footnote 2), \u2018Chapter 8: Control of the Arbitration\u2019, Section 8.03[H].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[43]<\/sup><\/a> ibid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[44]<\/sup><\/a> See, e.g., ICC Rules, Article 28 (granting the tribunal the power to \u2018order any interim or conservatory measure it deems appropriate\u2019).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[45]<\/sup><\/a> Jenkins (see footnote 2), \u2018Chapter 8: Control of the Arbitration\u2019, Section 8.03[H].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[46]<\/sup><\/a> See, e.g., ICC Rules, Article 28; SIAC Rules 2025, Article 45.1.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[47]<\/sup><\/a> Martin F Gusy and James Milton Hosking, A Guide to the ICDR International Arbitration Rules<\/em> (2nd edn., Oxford University Press, 2024), \u2018Part 1: Commentary on the ICDR International Rules\u2019, \u2018Article 24: Interim Measures\u2019, Section 24.11.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[48]<\/sup><\/a> See ibid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[49]<\/sup><\/a> See ibid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[50]<\/sup><\/a> ibid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[51]<\/sup><\/a> LCIA Rules, Article 25.3 (requiring authorisation to apply for judicial relief after tribunal has been constituted); ICC Rules, Article 28(2) (requiring notice to the secretariat of any application to a judicial authority for relief).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[52]<\/sup><\/a> Jenkins (see footnote 2), \u2018Chapter 8: Control of the Arbitration\u2019, Section 8.03[H].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[53]<\/sup><\/a> Born (see footnote 5), \u2018Chapter 17: Provisional Relief in International Arbitration\u2019, Section 17.02[A][4].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[54]<\/sup><\/a> ibid.<\/em>; see<\/em>SIAC Rules 2025, Schedule 1, paragraph 18.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[55]<\/sup><\/a> ICC Rules, Article 29(2); see also Gusy and Hosking (see footnote 47), \u2018Part 1: Commentary on the ICDR International Rules\u2019, \u2018Article 24: Interim Measures\u2019, Section 24.09.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[56]<\/sup><\/a> Born (see footnote 5), \u2018Chapter 17: Provisional Relief in International Arbitration\u2019, Section 17.02[A][4].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[57]<\/sup><\/a> ICC Rules, Article 29(6).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[58]<\/sup><\/a> Born (see footnote 5), \u2018Chapter 17: Provisional Relief in International Arbitration\u2019, Section 17.02[A][6].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[59]<\/sup><\/a> ICC Rules, Appendix V, Article 6(4); LCIA Rules, Article 9.8; SIAC Rules 2025, Schedule 1, paragraph 17.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[60]<\/sup><\/a> See<\/em>ICDR Rules, Article 7(4).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[61]<\/sup><\/a> See<\/em>SIAC Rules 2025, Schedule 1, paragraphs 25\u201333.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[62]<\/sup><\/a> id.,<\/em>paragraph 25.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[63]<\/sup><\/a> id.,<\/em>paragraph 27.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[64]<\/sup><\/a> Jenkins (see footnote 2), \u2018Chapter 11: Procedural Issues\u2019, Section 11.05[B].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[65]<\/sup><\/a> Born (see footnote 5), \u2018Chapter 16: Disclosure in International Arbitration\u2019, Section 16[C].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[66]<\/sup><\/a> LCIA Rules, Article 22.1.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[67]<\/sup><\/a> Jenkins (see footnote 2), \u2018Chapter 8: Control of the Arbitration\u2019, Section 8.03[E].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[68]<\/sup><\/a> ICC Rules, Article 25(1).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[69]<\/sup><\/a> Jenkins (see footnote 2), \u2018Chapter 8: Control of the Arbitration\u2019, Section 8.03[E]; see UNCITRAL Rules, Article 27(3); ICDR Rules, Article 22(5).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[70]<\/sup><\/a> SIAC Rules 2025, Article 32.2.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[71]<\/sup><\/a> Jenkins (see footnote 2), \u2018Chapter 8: Control of the Arbitration\u2019, Section 8.03[E].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[72]<\/sup><\/a> International Bar Association Rules on the Taking of Evidence (IBA Rules), Articles 3.3(b), 3.7, 3.9, 3.11.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[73]<\/sup><\/a> Born (see footnote 5), \u2018Chapter 15: Procedures in International Arbitration\u2019, Section 15.07[E].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[74]<\/sup><\/a> ICC Rules, Appendix IV(d)(iii).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[75]<\/sup><\/a> Jenkins (see footnote 2), \u2018Chapter 8: Control of the Arbitration\u2019, Section 8.03[E].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[76]<\/sup><\/a> ibid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[77]<\/sup><\/a> LCIA Rules, Article 22.1(v).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[78]<\/sup><\/a> SIAC Rules 2025, Article 50.2(f).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[79]<\/sup><\/a> ICDR Rules, Articles 22(5), 24(4).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[80]<\/sup><\/a> Jenkins (see footnote 2), \u2018Chapter 9: Preparation and Collection of Evidence\u2019, Section 9.06[A].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[81]<\/sup><\/a> ibid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[82]<\/sup><\/a> ICC Rules, Article 25(2).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[83]<\/sup><\/a> LCIA Rules, Article 20.1.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[84]<\/sup><\/a> SIAC Rules 2025, Article 40.1.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[85]<\/sup><\/a> UNCITRAL Rules, Article 27(2).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[86]<\/sup><\/a> IBA Rules, Article 5.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[87]<\/sup><\/a> Jenkins (see footnote 2), \u2018Chapter 9: Preparation and Collection of Evidence\u2019, Section 9.06[B][1].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[88]<\/sup><\/a> ICDR Rules, Article 28.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[89]<\/sup><\/a> id., Article 28.4.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[90]<\/sup><\/a> ICC Rules, Article 25(3); LCIA Rules, Article 21.1; ICDR Rules, Article 28(1), SIAC Rules 2025, Article 41.1; UNCITRAL Rules, Article 29(1).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[91]<\/sup><\/a> LCIA Rules, Article 21.2; see SIAC Rules 2025, Article 41.3; ICDR Rules, Article 28(1); UNCITRAL Rules, Article 29(2).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[92]<\/sup><\/a> IBA Rules, Article 6.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[93]<\/sup><\/a> Jenkins (see footnote 2), \u2018Chapter 8: Control of the Arbitration\u2019, Section 8.03[F] (citing ICC Rules, Article 25(3); LCIA Rules, Article 21.4; UNCITRAL Rules, Article 29(5); ICDR Rules, Article 28(4).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[94]<\/sup><\/a> Katherine Bell, \u2018Expert Evidence in Construction Disputes: Arbitrator Perspective\u2019, <\/em>in Stavros Brekoulakis and David Brynmor Thomas KC (eds), The Guide to Construction Arbitration<\/em> (6th edn., Global Arbitration Review, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[95]<\/sup><\/a> Born (see footnote 5), \u2018Chapter 15: Procedures in International Arbitration\u2019, Section 15.08[Z][8]; Kate Krause, \u2018Hot Tubbing and Expert Conferences\u2014Using Concurrent Expert Evidence to Streamline Construction Arbitration\u2019, Dispute Resolution Journal<\/em>, Vol. 74(3) (2019).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

When one of your cases is in need of a construction expert, estimates, insurance appraisal or umpire services in defect or insurance disputes – please call Advise & Consult, Inc. at 888.684.8305, or email experts@adviseandconsult.net<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

J. Laurens Wilkes, Michael J. Stepek, Gustavo J. Membiela and Imad Khan | Winston & Strawn The selection of arbitration for complex construction projects continues to increase[1]\u00a0\u2013 and, for good reasons: its finality, confidentiality and rules are suitable for complex, multiparty, and technically demanding matters. The flexibility of arbitration \u2013 tailoring procedures, selecting technically qualified… Continue reading Construction Disputes: Suitability And Up-Front Considerations For Arbitration Rule Selection<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[41,9,12180],"tags":[9895,42,224,204],"class_list":["post-904750","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-arbitration","category-construction-contracts","category-construction-disputes","tag-advise-consult","tag-arbitration-2","tag-construction-contract","tag-construction-disputes","entry"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"yoast_head":"\nConstruction Disputes: Suitability And Up-Front Considerations For Arbitration Rule Selection - Advise & Consult, Inc.<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The selection of arbitration for complex construction projects continues to increase[1]\u00a0\u2013 and, for good reasons\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/arbitration-construction-disputes-suitability-up-front-considerations\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Construction Disputes: Suitability And Up-Front Considerations For Arbitration Rule Selection - Advise & Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The selection of arbitration for complex construction projects continues to increase[1]\u00a0\u2013 and, for good reasons\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/arbitration-construction-disputes-suitability-up-front-considerations\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Advise & Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-09-02T22:41:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-09-02T22:41:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@adviseconsult\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@adviseconsult\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/arbitration-construction-disputes-suitability-up-front-considerations\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/arbitration-construction-disputes-suitability-up-front-considerations\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\"},\"headline\":\"Construction Disputes: Suitability And Up-Front Considerations For Arbitration Rule Selection\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-09-02T22:41:34+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-09-02T22:41:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/arbitration-construction-disputes-suitability-up-front-considerations\/\"},\"wordCount\":5759,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Advise & Consult\",\"arbitration\",\"Construction Contract\",\"Construction Disputes\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Arbitration\",\"Construction Contracts\",\"Construction Disputes\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/arbitration-construction-disputes-suitability-up-front-considerations\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/arbitration-construction-disputes-suitability-up-front-considerations\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/arbitration-construction-disputes-suitability-up-front-considerations\/\",\"name\":\"Construction Disputes: Suitability And Up-Front Considerations For Arbitration Rule Selection - Advise & Consult, Inc.\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2025-09-02T22:41:34+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-09-02T22:41:37+00:00\",\"description\":\"The selection of arbitration for complex construction projects continues to increase[1]\u00a0\u2013 and, for good reasons\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/arbitration-construction-disputes-suitability-up-front-considerations\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"Advise & Consult, Inc.\",\"description\":\"Construction Expert Witnesses\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Advise & Consult\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png\",\"width\":162,\"height\":75,\"caption\":\"Advise & Consult\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/adviseconsult\",\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company-beta\/204526\/\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/MrConstructionExpert\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/www.expertwitnessinconstruction.com\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Construction Disputes: Suitability And Up-Front Considerations For Arbitration Rule Selection - Advise & Consult, Inc.","description":"The selection of arbitration for complex construction projects continues to increase[1]\u00a0\u2013 and, for good reasons","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/arbitration-construction-disputes-suitability-up-front-considerations\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Construction Disputes: Suitability And Up-Front Considerations For Arbitration Rule Selection - Advise & Consult, Inc.","og_description":"The selection of arbitration for complex construction projects continues to increase[1]\u00a0\u2013 and, for good reasons","og_url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/arbitration-construction-disputes-suitability-up-front-considerations\/","og_site_name":"Advise & Consult, Inc.","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","article_published_time":"2025-09-02T22:41:34+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-09-02T22:41:37+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@adviseconsult","twitter_site":"@adviseconsult","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/arbitration-construction-disputes-suitability-up-front-considerations\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/arbitration-construction-disputes-suitability-up-front-considerations\/"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7"},"headline":"Construction Disputes: Suitability And Up-Front Considerations For Arbitration Rule Selection","datePublished":"2025-09-02T22:41:34+00:00","dateModified":"2025-09-02T22:41:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/arbitration-construction-disputes-suitability-up-front-considerations\/"},"wordCount":5759,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"keywords":["Advise & Consult","arbitration","Construction Contract","Construction Disputes"],"articleSection":["Arbitration","Construction Contracts","Construction Disputes"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/arbitration-construction-disputes-suitability-up-front-considerations\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/arbitration-construction-disputes-suitability-up-front-considerations\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/arbitration-construction-disputes-suitability-up-front-considerations\/","name":"Construction Disputes: Suitability And Up-Front Considerations For Arbitration Rule Selection - Advise & Consult, Inc.","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2025-09-02T22:41:34+00:00","dateModified":"2025-09-02T22:41:37+00:00","description":"The selection of arbitration for complex construction projects continues to increase[1]\u00a0\u2013 and, for good reasons","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/arbitration-construction-disputes-suitability-up-front-considerations\/"]}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/","name":"Advise & Consult, Inc.","description":"Construction Expert Witnesses","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization","name":"Advise & Consult","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png","width":162,"height":75,"caption":"Advise & Consult"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","https:\/\/x.com\/adviseconsult","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company-beta\/204526\/","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/MrConstructionExpert"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/www.expertwitnessinconstruction.com"]}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2ztG6-3NmK","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/904750","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=904750"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/904750\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":904751,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/904750\/revisions\/904751"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=904750"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=904750"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=904750"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}