Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Court out

Letters

In answer to the letter from MD Joyce (NCE last week) and Is Arbitration working? (NCE 19 July 2001), arbitration is little more than litigation at the parties' expense.

Under the relatively new Civil Procedure Rules, the courts encourage the parties to resolve disputes by other means before the formal proceedings bring costs out of proportion to the sums in dispute - little difference to arbitration.

The introduction of adjudication has resulted in a dramatic fall in the number of cases in the Technology and Construction Court and I suspect there has been a similar fall in the number of cases referred to Arbitration.

Arbitration went wrong when it was highjacked by arbitrators who wanted to act like High Court judges. Anyone who has experienced both litigation and arbitration will be able to relate to this fact.

As an adjudicator, solicitor and civil engineer, I want adjudication to work as Parliament intended it to work.

If adjudication is highjacked in the way that arbitration has been, the advantages of adjudication will be eroded.

Andrew Worby (F), TLT Solicitors, Bush House, 72 Prince Street, Bristol, BS99 7JZ

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.