• International conference on construction engineering and project management
• /
• 2011.02a
• /
• pp.350-356
• /
• 2011

Early neutral evaluation (ENE) is a fairly recent form of alternative dispute resolution procedure used in the construction industry. In the UK, ENE is usually carried out on an entirely without prejudice basis, however the parties may agree that any or part of it may be referred to at trial or any subsequent hearing. The early neutral evaluation consists of a preliminary assessment of the issues in dispute for use as a basis for negotiations which may result in a settlement of the dispute. An independent person is appointed by the parties who reviews the case and provides an opinion, in written form and in some detail, with reasons on the merits of the matters in dispute. The opinion is non-binding but provides the parties with what in the opinion of the independent person a formal tribunal may decide whether a court or an arbitrator, if the dispute is not resolved. However, ENE has yet to take off in the construction industry in the UK. This paper will explain this procedure and explore the use of it in the UK and internationally, considering the benefits and drawbacks of its use. It will consider whether or not it is more effective than other early resolution forms such as mediation and adjudication. It will argue and conclude that it is a very useful cost effective procedure, particularly in the resolution of complex disputes, whether local or international.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.25 no.4
• /
• pp.51-75
• /
• 2015

Administrative ADR to solve new problems has the characteristics of a new project, hence ADR is established and operated with a lack of human and material resources in the process of introducing administrative ADR. Therefore, it is preferred to resolve conflicts by less costly counseling and mutual agreement before mediation. When we try to settle the disputes through administrative ADR at the stage before mediation, it causes problems for the neutrality and impartiality of the dispute settlement procedures. In this case administrative ADR systems should introduce devices that ensure the impartiality of the process. In some issues becoming social problems, relevant administrative agencies are inclined to establish ADR systems. If ADR systems become available, a person who may use ADR services may have some trouble grasping ADR institutions because he/she can hardly distinguish their business affairs. By subdividing administrative affairs, when the disputes have the issues that touch on various fields of the affairs, parties in the disputes have to take ADR procedures one by one in all ADR-related institutions. This may lead to too heavy a burden on the disputing parties, furthermore forcing them to give up the remedies of their rights. For more efficient ADR operations, it is necessary that the institutions which set up and operate ADR systems should actively exchange and cooperate with one another. They need to forge and strengthen the solidarity between administrations and courts. The administrative agencies which run ADR themselves have to build up the devices for preparing human resources and material facilities for administrative ADR.