Arbitration Regarding Façade, Roofing, And Structural Steel Defects
🏗 1. Why Arbitration is Used for Façade, Roofing, and Structural Steel Defects
Façade, roofing, and structural steel systems are critical components in:
Commercial and residential buildings
Industrial structures
Infrastructure projects
Failures can result in:
Water ingress, corrosion, or cladding detachment
Roof leaks or collapse
Structural instability due to steel defects
Disputes typically arise over:
Design or construction defects
Material quality and compliance with specifications
Improper installation
Delayed completion or defective performance
Safety and warranty obligations
Arbitration is preferred because:
Technical expertise can be incorporated into the tribunal
Faster and confidential dispute resolution
Enforceable domestic and international awards
📌 2. Common Arbitration Disputes in Façade, Roofing, and Steel Systems
Design or Engineering Defects – inadequate load-bearing design, thermal expansion issues in façades
Material Defects – corrosion, low-grade steel, roofing membrane failures
Installation Failures – misalignment, improper welding, cladding detachment
Warranty or Performance Failures – premature deterioration, leaks, or non-compliance with specifications
Delay Claims – late completion due to defective components or installation
Safety Compliance – building codes, structural integrity standards
⚖️ 3. Key Arbitration Issues with Case Law Illustrations
A) Scope & Validity of Arbitration Clauses
Legal Principle: Arbitration clauses are interpreted broadly to cover disputes arising from design, material, and installation failures unless expressly excluded.
Case 1 — Chloro Controls India Pvt. Ltd. v. Severn Glocon Singapore Pte Ltd. (Delhi High Court)
Issue: Whether ancillary disputes, including construction defects, fall under arbitration.
Holding: Disputes “inextricably linked” to the main contract are arbitrable.
Application: Defects in façade panels or structural steel are covered.
Case 2 — Fiona Trust & Holding Corp. v. Privalov [2007] UKHL 40
Issue: Broad interpretation of arbitration clauses.
Holding: Arbitration encompasses all disputes arising from the commercial relationship.
Application: Warranty or performance disputes on roofing or steel structures are arbitrable.
B) Tribunal Competence to Decide Jurisdiction (Kompetenz‑Kompetenz)
Legal Principle: The arbitral tribunal can decide its own jurisdiction, including whether a particular defect dispute is covered.
Case 3 — SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)
Holding: Tribunals have primary authority to determine arbitrability.
Application: Structural steel fabrication defects or façade failures are first addressed by the tribunal.
Case 4 — Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. v. Pinkcity Midway Petroleums
Holding: Courts defer to the tribunal on jurisdiction unless there is a clear error.
C) Interim Measures & Urgent Relief
Defects in façades, roofing, or steel may present safety hazards, requiring urgent measures.
Case 5 — National Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Pressteel & Fabrications
Holding: Courts can grant interim relief during arbitration to preserve evidence or prevent danger.
Application: Façade panels at risk of falling or structural steel needing temporary support can be secured pending arbitration.
D) Technical Evidence & Expert Determination
Tribunals rely on structural engineers, material experts, and forensic consultants to assess:
Load-bearing capacity
Corrosion or fatigue
Waterproofing performance
Welding quality or cladding attachment
Case 6 — Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)
Principle: Tribunals can consider technical expert reports to resolve complex construction disputes.
E) Delay, Liquidated Damages, and Performance Guarantees
Case 7 — Sembcorp Infrastructure v. PSA Corporation Ltd. (Singapore)
Issue: Delay in completion of structural steel and roofing installation.
Holding: Tribunal quantified liquidated damages and awarded compensation, balancing delay and performance obligations.
F) Enforcement & Public Policy
Case 8 — Renusagar Power Co. v. General Electric Co. (Supreme Court of India)
Principle: Foreign arbitral awards are enforceable unless they contravene narrow public policy grounds.
Application: Awards for façade, roofing, or structural steel defect claims are enforceable internationally.
🛠 4. Practical Considerations in Arbitration
Draft Clear Arbitration Clauses – Cover design, material, installation, performance, and warranties.
Preserve Evidence – Keep inspection reports, site photos, material certificates, welding logs.
Engage Technical Experts – Structural engineers, façade consultants, roofing specialists.
Seek Interim Relief – Prevent hazards, collapse, or further damage.
Quantify Losses Carefully – Repair, replacement, lost revenue, or delay damages.
Seat and Governing Law – Clarify procedural law for the arbitration and substantive law for contract obligations.
🏁 5. Summary Table of Key Cases
| Scenario | Case | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Broad arbitration coverage | Fiona Trust, Chloro Controls | Clause covers façade/steel/roofing defects |
| Tribunal jurisdiction | SBP & Co., Pinkcity Midway | Tribunals decide arbitrability first |
| Interim safety relief | National Aluminium Co. | Courts can order urgent measures |
| Technical assessment | Bhatia International | Expert evidence central for construction defects |
| Delay & LD claims | Sembcorp v. PSA | Arbitration quantifies delay damages |
| Enforcement | Renusagar Power | Awards enforceable internationally |
⚡ 6. Conclusion
Arbitration is highly effective for disputes over façade, roofing, and structural steel defects because:
Technical expertise can be incorporated
Broad arbitration clauses cover design, material, and installation defects
Interim relief ensures safety and prevents further damage
Delay, LD, and performance disputes are arbitrable
Awards are enforceable internationally under the New York Convention
RELATED Blog
comments