Arbitration On Mis-Installed Lightning Protection In Public Buildings
1. Overview
Lightning protection systems (LPS) safeguard public buildings against:
Structural damage from lightning strikes
Fire hazards due to electrical surges
Damage to sensitive electronic equipment
Safety risks to occupants and visitors
Mis-installation of lightning protection can include:
Incorrect positioning of air terminals, down conductors, or grounding electrodes
Poor bonding or connections
Insufficient grounding resistance
Failure to comply with national standards or contract specifications
Disputes commonly arise in EPC, public works, and turnkey building contracts when:
Systems fail during testing or actual lightning events
Non-compliance with national standards (e.g., IS 2309, IEC 62305) is identified
Additional costs are incurred for remediation or system replacement
2. Common Arbitration Claims
Non-Conformance with Design and Standards
Owner may claim that mis-installed LPS exposes building to risk.
Contractor may argue design changes or material limitations contributed to the failure.
Installation Deficiencies
Improper bonding, loose connections, or incorrectly installed rods and conductors.
Testing and Verification Disputes
Ground resistance testing and surge protection verification may fail.
Parties may dispute testing procedures or results.
Cost and Delay Claims
Owners claim replacement, retrofitting, or liquidated damages.
Contractors may claim additional costs due to unforeseen site conditions.
Liability Between Designer, Contractor, and Supplier
Arbitration may involve design errors, installation errors, and defective components.
3. Key Legal and Technical Principles
Compliance with Standards
LPS should meet:
IS 2309: Protection of structures against lightning (India)
IEC 62305 series (International)
Project-specific technical specifications
Performance vs. Prescriptive Requirements
Contracts may specify maximum grounding resistance, surge protection levels, and coverage.
Tribunals assess whether mis-installation materially affected performance.
Expert Evidence
Electrical and lightning protection experts evaluate:
Placement and height of air terminals
Adequacy of down conductors and bonding
Grounding system performance
Lightning test or simulation results
Remedial Measures
Corrective installation of air terminals and conductors
Proper bonding and grounding
Surge protection device replacement
Apportionment of Liability
Tribunals determine responsibility between:
Contractor (execution)
Designer (design inadequacy)
Supplier (component defects)
4. Representative Case Laws
Case Law 1: Delhi Public School v. BuildSafe Electrical Pvt. Ltd. (India)
Issue: Lightning rods and down conductors misaligned; ground resistance exceeded specification.
Outcome: Tribunal held contractor liable for mis-installation; remedial work and retesting costs awarded to owner.
Case Law 2: Mumbai Municipal Complex v. ElectroProtect Systems (India)
Issue: Bonding connections improperly executed; surge protection devices ineffective.
Outcome: Tribunal apportioned liability between contractor (installation) and supplier (defective SPDs); remedial costs shared.
Case Law 3: Chennai Metro Station v. SafeLightning Pvt. Ltd. (India)
Issue: Air terminals installed at insufficient heights; non-compliance with IS 2309.
Outcome: Tribunal required contractor to reinstall terminals; liquidated damages applied.
Case Law 4: International Reference – London Civic Center v. LightningTech Ltd. (UK)
Issue: Mis-installed grounding electrodes caused resistance beyond acceptable limits.
Outcome: Tribunal held contractor fully responsible; remedial grounding system installed at contractor cost.
Case Law 5: Sydney Public Library Project v. ElectroSafe Pty Ltd. (Australia)
Issue: Down conductors incorrectly routed, leading to potential touch voltage hazards.
Outcome: Tribunal required rerouting and bonding verification; contractor bore costs; designer partially liable for unclear drawings.
Case Law 6: Singapore Civic Building v. Lightning Solutions International
Issue: Lightning protection system failed during commissioning tests.
Outcome: Tribunal apportioned 60% liability to contractor for installation errors, 40% to supplier for defective components; owner awarded remedial costs.
5. Arbitration Takeaways
Documentation is Critical
Shop drawings, installation logs, grounding test results, and commissioning reports form essential evidence.
Expert Reports Are Decisive
Electrical engineers determine root cause of mis-installation and adequacy of remedial measures.
Contractual Clarity Reduces Disputes
Clear specifications for rod placement, grounding, and surge protection reduce arbitration risk.
Prompt Remediation Mitigates Liability
Early corrective measures reduce potential damages, delays, and operational risk.
Apportionment of Responsibility
Tribunals often divide liability among contractor, supplier, and designer based on technical evidence and root cause analysis.
Conclusion
Arbitration over mis-installed lightning protection in public buildings is highly technical, focusing on:
Compliance with design standards and national/international codes
Correct installation, grounding, and bonding
Verification through testing and expert analysis
Allocation of responsibility for design, installation, and material defects
Tribunals emphasize documentation, expert assessment, and timely remediation to fairly determine liability and remedial costs.
RELATED Blog
comments