Mediation in construction

Exploring the degree of fitness

Authors

  • Chandana Jayalath University of Vocational Technology

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1558/mtp.36710

Keywords:

Alternative Dispute Resolution;, evaluative approach, construction disputes, construction claims

Abstract

In mediation, disputants often tend to walk off at will. This inspired the author to evaluate the degree of fitness as a form of dispute resolution in construction. Fifty cases mediated in the recent past in the State of Qatar were analysed in terms of their approach and the net resultant effect. The tendency will be to fail mediation in construction unless the mediator actively intervenes in changing the dynamic of the conflict by contractual, financial and technical evaluation. The mediator in doing so acts beyond what is truly expected in mediation so that the outcome is arbitral to some extent rather than consensual. The author recommends this is not necessarily the case in the exception of construction and contends that the key elements of mediation such as neutrality and impartiality can still be secured as long as the mediator does not step over the line into judgement.

Author Biography

Chandana Jayalath, University of Vocational Technology

Dr Chandana Jayalath is a senior lecturer, at the University of Vocational Technology, Sri Lanka and he has over 25 years' experience in the field of construction as a claims specialist and mediator. He has published over a hundred monographs online. He is the author of the books Contractual Dimensions in Construction and Arguing Construction Claims. He is a CEDR-accredited mediator.

References

Imperati, S. J. (1997) Mediator practice models: the intersection of ethics and stylistic practices in mediation. Willamette Law Review 33(3): 706–19.

Love, L. P. (1997) The top ten reasons why mediators should not evaluate. Florida State University Law Review 24(4): 937–48.

Love, L. P. and Kovach, K. K. (1998) Mapping mediation: the risks of Riskin’s Grid. Harvard Negotiation Law Review 3: 71–110.

Riskin, L. (1996) Understanding mediators’ orientations, strategies, and techniques: a grid for the perplexed. Harvard Negotiation Law Review 1(7): 7–51.

Roberts, S. and Palmer, M. (2005) Dispute Processes: ADR and the Primary Forms of Decision Making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805295

Stulberg, J. B. (1986) Mediator immunity. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 2: 85–92.

Stulberg, J. B. (1997) Facilitative versus evaluative mediator orientations: piercing the ‘grid’ lock. Florida State University Law Review 24(4): 985–1005.

Waldman, E. A. (1998) The evaluative–facilitative debate in mediation: applying the lens of therapeutic jurisprudence. Marquette Law Review 82(1): 155–70.

Wilmot-Smith, R. (1997) Construction Contracts Law and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Published

2018-10-22

How to Cite

Jayalath, C. (2018). Mediation in construction: Exploring the degree of fitness. Mediation Theory and Practice, 3(1), 34-45. https://doi.org/10.1558/mtp.36710

Issue

Section

Policy Articles