The recently decided legal case has raised serious concerns about the lack of clarity in Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedures. The focus is particularly on main contract suites that offer standard dispute resolution clauses, but these are frequently amended in practice according to current needs and requirements.
It is also notable how this matter was brought up as the aftermath of a bespoke provision that lacked the precision it needed to bring about a resolution without ambiguities. The complete details of the case can be accessed from this JD Supra report.
The case has underlined the critical importance of clarity in ADR provisions, reaffirming that any ambiguity could lead to severe issues and even court interventions that can result in costly and time-consuming litigation. It additionally indicates the potential pitfalls of straying away from the form contract’s standard clauses into more bespoke territory without rigorous reviewing and revising.
While it draws attention to the immediate need of making ADR clauses clearer in legal agreements, how feasible that would be in practice remains a question. Each legal case comes with its unique context and it may not always be possible to establish a universal set of standard rules that covers unlimited possible outcomes.
In light of these complexities, the recent case is a valuable reminder to legal professionals to exercise the utmost care and precision in drafting, reviewing, and revising ADR clauses in their contracts.
The original article was initially published by the RICS Construction Journal on November 1, 2023, and was written by legal experts at Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner