CONSTRUCTION ADJUDICATION IN A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE: THE CASE OF THE DANISH SPEEDY RESOLUTION
Sylvie Cécile Cavaleri
Associate Professor, Copenhagen University
Adjudication was introduced for the first time in Denmark in the newest suite of national standard construction contracts in use since early 2019. The present article seeks to evaluate, by way of comparison with other construction adjudication regimes, both statutory and contractual, whether the new rules have the potential to reach the same success as adjudication has achieved worldwide and if not, which changes could be suggested to reach this goal.
Construction adjudication is generally defined as a method of alternative dispute resolution (hereafter ADR) leading within a short period of time to a decision which is binding unless and until overturned in either arbitration or court proceedings. It is generally considered successful, at least when introduced by legislation. This success can be measured by two criteria. First, this ADR method is favoured by parties who choose it over for instance arbitration, which has shown a clear decline in certain countries since the introduction of adjudication.1
Secondly, most parties seem satisfied enough with the decisions obtained in adjudication, since they do not bring their dispute to further proceedings in a large majority of cases.2
Construction adjudication has therefore been introduced in many countries, by way either of standard contracts or by legislation.
One of the most famous examples of adjudication implemented by legislation is statutory adjudication in the UK, which was introduced in the