Our team offers expert project dispute resolution services through litigation, arbitration and alternative dispute resolution techniques to clients in all major industries including construction, projects and public and private infrastructure.

We regularly act for principals, suppliers, contractors, financiers, insurers, government and consultants in relation to the successful resolution of disputes through:

• alternative processes for dispute resolution (such as negotiation and mediation)
• international arbitration
• domestic arbitration
• relationship-based contracting solutions (such as partnering or alliance models)
• inter-project strategies (such as dispute adjudication, review boards or advisers)
• litigation representation and strategy.

Our team has acted in relation to disputes in all major industries, for example:

• aviation – airport terminal and infrastructure
• communications – microwave, fibre optic, ticketing, electronic tolling and telecommunications
• construction – high rise, residential, commercial, infrastructure, public and private
• electricity/power – generation, transmission, distribution, co-generation and hydro
• engineering – manufacturing, handling, processing and transport
• environmental – remediation and contamination
• government – statutory authorities and infrastructure
• health – public and private, aged care and nursing homes
• mining and resources – open cut, underground, solvents, liquids and gases
• transport – road, rail, electronic tolling and ticketing systems
• water – sewerage treatment, digesters and hydro.
  

Recent examples of our experience include:

• Indian pipeline arbitration – Disputes arose between a subcontractor and principal contractor in relation to a major Indian multi-purpose pipeline project. The contract was governed by Swiss law. The disputes were determined under the Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), before a panel of three arbitrators in Lausanne, Switzerland and Paris, France. Parallel court proceedings were conducted in Italy, Australia, India and the Czech Republic on discrete issues such as the draw down of bank guarantees and the securing of assets.
• Singapore gas pipeline arbitration – Disputes arose over the design and construction of a gas pipeline in Singapore. Parallel arbitration proceedings were conducted in Singapore, the first under the Rules of the Singapore Centre for International Arbitration, the latter on the basis of ad hoc arbitration. Related proceedings were initiated in the Singaporean and Australian courts and settlement was achieved before final hearing of all proceedings.
• Philippines and Singapore in hydro-electricity dispute – A substantial hydro-electricity project in the Philippines suffered substantial disputation. The governing law was the law of the Philippines and the venue for the arbitration was Singapore. The disputes were to be resolved under the ICC Rules. Difficult issues associated with jurisdiction and applicable law threatened to de-rail the process. We were able to expeditiously achieve successful rulings to facilitate this ICC arbitration. Parallel court proceedings were conducted in the Philippines in relation to the draw down of letters of credit.
• Engineering, procurement and construction contract – Significant issues arose towards the end of substantial engineering, procurement and construction contract for a major processing plant in Australia. Federal Court proceedings were initiated to preserve claims under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). The dispute was otherwise going to be resolved by arbitration involving several international parties.
• Contractual disputes requiring arbitration – A shopping centre redevelopment was governed by contracts requiring disputes to be referred to arbitration. The project was substantially prolonged and there were significant cost overruns. Issues in dispute included claims for extensions of time and liquidated damages, arguments of prevention, concurrent delay and penalties, arguments as to scope, Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) claims, practical completion issues and various contractual and payment claims.
• Warehouse development dispute – A warehouse development had been proceeding smoothly until it was recognised towards the end of the project that construction activities substantially departed from approved plans in a number of respects. Importantly, this would give rise to substantial loss and damage, including pure economic loss, during the future intended use of various parts of the facilities. Disputes arose and were referred to arbitration. The issues in dispute included arguments as to the scope of work, responsibility for design, recoverability of economic and future loss, quantification of losses, defect rectification, rebuilding obligations, duty of care issues and security for costs.
• Public infrastructure project involved in cross claims – The progress of an important public infrastructure project began to slow dramatically. Substantial claims ultimately arose and were referred to arbitration, including various cross claims.

As the rate of global business activity continues, parties have increasingly recognised the importance of avoiding or resolving project disputes in a timely and commercially-viable manner.

In some instances, arbitration (domestic or international); relationship contracting structures (such as alliancing and partnering); and alternate dispute resolution practices (such as negotiation or mediation) seek to avoid or limit disputes by recognising and developing convergent interests among the parties involved.

However, not all issues can be resolved in this manner and litigation may be required. Choosing a legal team that can support your business through the courts or via non-court methods is important.

Through extensive experience on major matters across many industries and jurisdictions, our team at Freehills are familiar with the complex range of factual and legal issues and relationships that accompany project disputes.

This demonstrated ability to provide commercial solutions is why clients seek out the expertise of our project dispute resolution team.

Legal guides

Freehills has been recognised by the industry for our outstanding work in dispute resolution and commercial litigation:

• Asia-Pacific Legal 500, top tier ranking in Dispute Resolution 2004-2011
• Asia-Pacific Legal 500, top tier ranking in Construction, 2006-2007 and 2010-2011
• Chambers Global, top tier ranking in Dispute Resolution, 2006–2008 and 2011
• Best Lawyers International, top-listed firm in Australia in Litigation, 2008–2011
• PLC Which Lawyer?, top tier ranking in Dispute Resolution, 2006–2008 and 2010

Testimonials

• ‘The outstanding litigation team is co-ordinated, pragmatic, strategic and timely.’ ‘They maintain a culture which is not about making money but rather about providing top-quality service to their clients.’ Chambers Asia Pacific 2011
• Freehills ‘combines the clever thinking of smaller firms with the depth and breadth of a very large one’ Asia Pacific Legal 500 2010/2011
• ‘They focus on the outcomes to be achieved rather than the process. They don't think one or two steps ahead – their advice is always what will happen three or four steps ahead.’ Chambers Global 2010
• ‘The “exceptional” Freehills is a “firm of choice” for clients in major litigation...providing “high levels of service, responsiveness and value”’. Asia Pacific Legal 500 2010 
• ‘excellent lawyers who always meet deadlines and are universally great to deal with.’ Chambers Global 2009 
• ‘The Dispute Resolution team at Freehills remains a strong choice for complex commercial disputes.’ Chambers Global 2009 
• ‘… one of the country’s “pre-eminent litigation teams” due to its vast resources and wide-ranging experience’, Chambers Global 2008