THE EFFECTIVENESS OF EXPERT DETERMINATION

Abstract

The construction industry has been a paradoxical leader in both dispute occurrences and dispute resolution systems for many years. While this may or may not be an enviable position, the industry has managed to develop and adopt many unique ways to address the potential risks of disputes. In the context of Singapore’s construction industry, the Expert Determination was introduced into the SIA standard forms together with its rules in 2011. This study examines the effectiveness of Expert Determination as an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and provides suggestions for the possible implementations to the SIA Expert Determination rules. In particular, a set of criteria for measuring the effectiveness of Expert Determination are examined in detail: time, cost, quality of expert determinators, flexibility of evidence gathering, enforcement, and confidentiality. The IAMA Expert Determination Rules is also used for the purpose of comparison and analysis while relevant judicial decisions are analysed to better understand the position of the courts in relation to expert determination and the lessons that could be learnt. It is concluded that while two forms of expert determination exists, expert determination, with reference to the SIA expert determination rules, is an effective mechanism in resolving technical disputes for parties who accept the determination as being conclusive. Apart from having well-trained expert determinators to look into the disputes, its confidential nature allows parties to maintain their business goodwill. Also, the inquisitorial powers of the expert determinator provide them with the flexibility to set their own procedures which contribute in streamlining the ED process and benefit parties in saving time and cost.