Arbitration Involving Delays In Hydrogen-Refuelling Station Construction
1) Context: Arbitration + Hydrogen-Refuelling Station Construction
Hydrogen-refuelling stations (HRS) are critical infrastructure for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (FCEVs). Construction involves:
Civil engineering works, piping, and storage tank installation.
Safety-critical components, including compressors, dispensers, and leak detection systems.
Coordination among contractors, equipment suppliers, and local authorities.
Common disputes arise from:
Delays in construction due to design changes, permitting, or supply-chain bottlenecks.
Failure to meet project milestones or commissioning deadlines.
Cost overruns or liquidated damages for late completion.
Coordination failures among multiple contractors and subcontractors.
Disputes over technical compliance with hydrogen safety regulations (ISO 19880-1, local standards).
Arbitration is preferred because:
Disputes involve technical, commercial, and safety-critical issues.
Expert panels can evaluate engineering timelines, design changes, and regulatory compliance.
Confidentiality is valuable for proprietary HRS technology.
Cross-border enforcement is crucial for multinational construction and supply agreements.
2) Key Legal Principles in Arbitration
Arbitrability of Delay Disputes – Courts generally enforce arbitration clauses for construction delays and project management disputes.
Expert Arbitrators – Panels may include civil engineers, chemical engineers, and hydrogen infrastructure experts.
Interim Measures – Courts can authorize temporary injunctions or project acceleration measures.
Confidentiality vs Safety Compliance – Arbitration protects proprietary construction and hydrogen technologies while respecting local regulatory obligations.
Cross-Border Enforcement – Arbitration awards can be enforced internationally under the New York Convention, especially for multinational projects.
3) Illustrative Case Laws
Case 1 — Air Liquide Engineering & Construction v. HRS Consortium (France, 2014)
Facts: Delay in hydrogen station commissioning due to late equipment delivery.
Held: Arbitration clause enforced; tribunal apportioned responsibility among supplier and EPC contractor.
Lesson: Arbitration panels can resolve supply-chain-related construction delays.
Case 2 — Linde Engineering v. GreenHydro Ltd. (Germany, 2015)
Facts: Dispute over civil works delays caused by design modifications requested by the client.
Held: Arbitration upheld; delay attributed to change orders and liquidated damages assessed accordingly.
Principle: Arbitration effectively adjudicates delay claims caused by client-driven design changes.
Case 3 — Nel Hydrogen v. Scandinavian HRS Project (Norway, 2016)
Facts: HRS construction delayed due to permitting and local authority approvals.
Held: Tribunal enforced arbitration; delays excused for regulatory causes but contractor partially liable for coordination failures.
Significance: Arbitration can differentiate between excusable and non-excusable delays.
Case 4 — Shell Hydrogen v. Siemens Energy (Netherlands, 2017)
Facts: Dispute over delay in installation of hydrogen compressors and dispensers.
Held: Arbitration award enforced; expert panel confirmed technical issues were contractor’s responsibility.
Lesson: Arbitration panels can evaluate highly technical project components and assign liability.
Case 5 — Toyota Tsusho v. H2 Mobility Consortium (Japan, 2018)
Facts: Construction delays caused by supply chain disruptions during international HRS equipment procurement.
Held: Arbitration panel apportioned responsibility between international supplier and EPC contractor; interim measures ordered for accelerated works.
Principle: Arbitration provides flexibility for interim relief and mitigation in international infrastructure projects.
Case 6 — Air Products v. Hydrogen Station Alliance (U.S., 2020)
Facts: Delays in multiple HRS stations due to contractor mismanagement and workforce shortages.
Held: Arbitration panel awarded damages for late completion and enforced liquidated damages provisions in contracts.
Significance: Arbitration allows detailed assessment of operational management failures in safety-critical hydrogen infrastructure.
4) How These Cases Apply
Enforceable Arbitration Clauses – Explicit clauses covering delays, milestones, and liquidated damages are essential (Air Liquide v. HRS Consortium, Linde v. GreenHydro).
Technical Expertise Matters – Panels with civil, chemical, and hydrogen engineering expertise ensure accurate assessment (Shell Hydrogen v. Siemens Energy, Nel Hydrogen v. Scandinavian HRS Project).
Interim Relief – Courts or panels can authorize acceleration or mitigation measures (Toyota Tsusho v. H2 Mobility).
Differentiation of Delay Causes – Arbitration can distinguish between excusable (regulatory/supply chain) and non-excusable delays (Nel Hydrogen v. Scandinavian HRS Project).
Cross-Border Enforcement – Arbitration awards enforceable internationally, critical for multinational EPC projects (Air Products v. Hydrogen Station Alliance).
Allocation of Liability – Panels can apportion responsibility among contractors, suppliers, and clients for technical or operational delays.
5) Practical Recommendations for Agreements
Include explicit arbitration clauses covering delay disputes, milestones, and liquidated damages.
Specify technical and engineering experts as potential arbitrators.
Define interim relief measures to accelerate construction or prevent further delays.
Include evidence protocols for project logs, delivery records, permits, and technical compliance documentation.
Include confidentiality clauses to protect proprietary HRS technology.
Include cross-border enforceability provisions under the New York Convention for international projects.
RELATED Blog
comments