In international business, a party contemplating concluding an arbitration agreement in a contract for the resolution of disputes or differences may be faced with a choice of the various types of arbitrations which can be conducted under either self-administered ad hoc or institutional rules or procedures.

Most branches of trade or industry have established arbitration procedures within professional bodies. Contemporary arbitration gives the parties wide latitude to establish whatever rules of procedure they deem appropriate.

There are structural contrasts between the types of arbitrations as is reflected in the manner by which cases are generally presented by the parties and apprehended by the arbitral tribunal.

However, in most situations, the type of arbitration is chosen by the parties not so much because they like it but rather because they have no other choice. While there are intrinsic merits in each type of arbitration, more often than not, the option evaporates and the chosen method normally prevails by default.

I deal with only two types of arbitration namely, ad hoc arbitration and institutional arbitration, their advantages and disadvantages over each other.

Institutional and Adhoc Arbitrations – Advantages and Disadvantages by Sundra Rajoo (November 2009)

Conference Flyer

By
MR.IVAN LOO

Chaired by
MR. SUNDRA RAJOO

5^TH NOVEMBER 2009 (THURSDAY)

SYPNOSIS
At a time of rapid building and infrastructure development in Malaysia and around the globe, this may be an opportune moment for construction professionals like architects, engineers and quantity surveyors and also building owners and design and build contractors to understand their basic rights and obligations when carrying out their respective functions. Interesting issues include whether there are concurrent liabilities in contract and in tort for designers, the standard and scope of these respective duties, the differences between a designer’s liability in a design only contract and a design and build/turnkey contract, and the effectiveness of any exclusion or limitation of liability clauses.

By
IR. HARBANS SINGH KS

Chaired by
MR. SUNDRA RAJOO

23rd MAY 2009 (SATURDAY)

Since its introduction in 1969, the Pertubuhan Akitek Malaysia (PAM) standard forms of building contract are used extensively in the private sector commercial, institutional, housing and other building projects. It is estimated that 90% of the building contracts in the private sector are based on a PAM form. As such, the PAM forms have become the defacto benchmark as the Malaysian Standard Form of Building Contract from its genesis in 1969 up to their last revision in 1998.

The PAM/ISM 1969 Forms has had its fair share of criticism and judicial scrutiny. The PAM 1998 Forms did, to a large extent address the shortcomings of the previous PAM 1969 forms and continued to be popular in the later part of the last century and to date. PAM has recently introduced a new set of standard forms entitled PAM 2006 Forms to replace the PAM 1998 Forms. Although the new forms are dated 2006, they were officially launched in 2007 and made available for use recently. .

The PAM 2006 Forms are stated to be a redraft of its 1998 predecessor. However, a closer scrutiny of the two Forms shows only superficial resemblance. The various provisions in the new Forms have been re-worded, reshuffled, and amalgamated. The risk allocation for time, money matters, quality issues and dispute resolution between the contractor, employer and consultant team has been shifted significantly. Although the PAM 2006 Forms contain some contemporary provisions, they are also more procedural requiring the contractor, employer and consultants to strictly adhere to time provisions with the attendant loss of rights or incurring of liabilities. Comparatively, the PAM 2006 Forms limit the rights of employers while reducing the risks borne by contractors. This reallocation of risks proportionately increases the employer’s exposure and burden in terms of claims and payments while providing more possible grounds for disputes between the contractor and employer. Further, the PAM 2006 imposes definite and at times, mandatory time periods on the Architect/consultant team to carry out certain duties, for example, certification and approvals within a specified time. The failure to do so may open the consultant team to professional negligence claims. Prima facie, the PAM 2006 Form has also not referred to nor dealt with directly the statutory requirements of the Certificate of Completion and Compliance (CCC).

In view of the impact of the new forms on all practitioners in the local building industry, this one day course has been formulated to address, as an overview (with emphasis on the PAM 2006 (with quantities) Form), the principal revisions that have been undertaken, the plus points of such revisions, the apparent deficiencies and drawbacks in practice, foreseeable areas of contention and possible improvements that should be made to make these forms relevant and applicable in the contemporary political, commercial and professional scenarios.

Speaker : SUNDRA RAJOO

SYNOPSIS

Malaysia saw a major overhaul of its arbitral regime with the enactment of the Arbitration Act 2005 (Act 646) which came into force on 15th March, 2006. The Act applies to all arbitrations commenced after that date irregardless of when an arbitration agreement is entered into. It is based on UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, repeals and replaces the Arbitration Act 1952 (Act 93), and the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Act 1985 (Act 320), which implemented the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958.The talk will discuss the law, practice and procedure of arbitration in highlighting the changes and practical impact brought about by the Arbitration Act 2005.

20th and 21st October 2008

Venue: Shangri-la Hotel, Kuala Lumpur

» Download the SCL, Conference Brochure