M006 Conflict of interest

alison_patey0437
Mind Map by , created over 6 years ago

Mind Map on M006 Conflict of interest, created by alison_patey0437 on 04/29/2013.

98
1
0
Tags No tags specified
alison_patey0437
Created by alison_patey0437 over 6 years ago
Biology Unit 1a - GCSE - AQA
RosettaStoneDecoded
The Circulatory System
Johnny Hammer
Dermatologi K12 - eksamener 2016
Mediciner Box
B1 Conditionals recap
Esther Alabart
Clinical Pathoanatomy MCQs (Q 151-250)
Ore iyanda
GCSE PE - 6
lydia_ward
Nazi Germany Dates
Georgina.Smith
B7: Blood and the Circulatory System
FCox143
unit 1 f321 chemistry ocr
methmip
Weimar Republic - Problems facing it from 1918 - 1923
failingunicorn
M006 Conflict of interest
1 Standard form of contract deal with Conflict avoidance and DR
1.1 ICE, NEC & JCT have adopted adjudication
1.1.1 effecive after incorporation of HGCRA Act 1996
1.1.2 now statutory requirement of UK contracts
1.1.3 decision in 28 days
1.2 difference between UK Adjudication and FIDIC adjudication
1.2.1 UK requirement based on statue
1.2.2 FIDIC is a contract based requirement
1.2.2.1 FIDIC 1999 form of contract inc DAB (dispute Adjudication Boards) provision 1 or 3 members. its contractual and all parties to abide by decision
1.2.2.1.1 DAB provision
1.2.2.1.1.1 standing disputes board
1.2.2.1.1.2 standing body and visits site reg.
1.2.2.1.1.3 84 days 2 make a decision
1.2.2.1.1.4 decision is final and binding if no notice of disatifaction if given
2 Hierachy of DR
2.1 1. Negotiaiton
2.1.1 2. Mediation
2.1.1.1 3. Conciliation
2.1.1.1.1 4. Early neutral evaluation
2.1.1.1.1.1 5. Expert determination
2.1.1.1.1.1.1 6. Adjudication
2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 7. Arbritration/litigation
2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 arbitration: resolve disputes under control of the parties; conditions met e.g. idena genuine dispute, binding agreement 2 submit 2 arb in contract;
2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 Arbitration procedures:
2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1 docs only - 30days
2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.2 short hearing - 30 days
2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.3 full hearing - long
2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3 Difference between Arbitration & litiation
2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3.1 Arbitration:
2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3.1.1 governed by Arbitration Act 1996
2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3.1.2 in order 2 arb u must have agreement from both parties
2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3.1.3 parties have a degree of discretion as to they way proccedings r conducted
2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3.1.4 similiar 2 litigation in sense of formal submission, expert evidence, hearing & decision by arbitrator
2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3.1.5 3 types:
2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3.1.5.1 Short hearing - 1 month
2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3.1.5.2 Docs only - 1 month
2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3.1.5.3 full procedure - long
2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3.1.6 Advantages: private; parties have flex; arb awards easier 2 enforce
2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3.1.7 Confidential/ private
2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3.2 Litigation:
2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3.2.1 presentation of argument in court
2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3.2.2 public process - follow Civil Proceudure Rule
2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3.2.3 Advantages: parties don't pay 4 judge/court, speedy & efficient, process can deal with multi parites, Civil Procedure rules = accessibility
2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3.2.4 good 4 multi-party disputes
2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.4 Litigation: last resort 2 settle disputes by an action in court of law
2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.4.1 Advantages:
2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.4.1.1 3rd parties can join in on dispute
2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.4.1.2 legal aid avaliable
2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.4.1.3 less expensive than ARB
2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.4.1.4 decisive approach by judge
2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.4.2 Disadvantages:
2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.4.2.1 time consuming & unclear results
2.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 Uk stat DR procedure; relitively quick from submission 2 referral; binding until dispute determined by litigation/arbritation
2.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1 enforcement in contracts by HGCRA 1996
2.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 applies to all E/S/W contracts
2.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.2 if there r no provisions for Adj in contract = Scheme 4 construction contracts applies
2.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.3 its a stat right 2 have adj assuming the contract qualifies under the construction act. if not scheme 4 construction contracts applies
2.1.1.1.1.1.2 resolution by qual. person exp in subject under dispute. they decide the outcome
2.1.1.1.1.1.3 ADVANTAGES:
2.1.1.1.1.1.3.1 Rapid
2.1.1.1.1.1.3.2 binding
2.1.1.1.1.1.3.3 cheap
2.1.1.1.1.1.3.4 private
2.1.1.1.1.1.3.5 court gives support to its outcomes/ rulings
2.1.1.1.1.2 is a non binding assessment by a neutral professional. this could be used as a bias for settlement
2.1.1.1.2 Similar 2 mediation; independant party 2 aid agreement; conciliator = no auth 2 seek evidence of call witness; coniliator = makes NO decisions.
2.1.1.1.2.1 Difference between Mediation & conciliation:
2.1.1.1.2.1.1 Mediation: brings parties 2gether & agree based on careful approach which best suits both parties
2.1.1.1.2.1.2 conciliation: doesnt try to bring parties together and agrees through a 3rd party acting as a broker
2.1.1.2 ADR - sep 3rd pty 2 mediate & guide a decision optimising parties needs; med encourages coming 2gether and agreeing
2.1.1.2.1 Centre for effetive dispute resolution CEDR
2.1.1.2.1.1 can provide 2 prj mediators 4 a mth retainer 2 a prj
2.1.1.2.1.1.1 attend prj meetings 2 discuss progress - deal with any prb
2.1.1.2.1.1.2 prj mediation w.shop is arranged prior 2 contract commencement - to resolve any conflict using CEDR model mediation procedure
2.1.2 parties may through formal/informal process agree to settle the dipute either at high level or in detail & agree 2 b bound by this settlement
2.1.2.1 Success of negotiation: both parties come away happy, costs agreed
2.2 1 to 6 are ADR procedures
3 Conflict Avoidance
3.1 2 methods
3.1.1 management methods
3.1.1.1 reduce risk through better planning e.g. ensuring contract docs are prepared properly & r clear and precise
3.1.1.2 Project & business structures: e.g. partnering/ integrated project teams, using appropriate procurement methods; emp good value management
3.1.2 non escalation methods
3.1.2.1 resolving disputes b4 they escalate: e.g. structured negotiation, tired DR mechanisms in contrats
3.1.2.1.1 using appropriate procurement practice
3.1.2.1.2 sufficient preparation and tender planning
3.1.2.1.3 complete design in all respects
3.1.2.1.4 selection construction contracts e.g NEC/ECC
3.1.2.1.5 contract docs clear and precise
3.1.2.1.6 utilising project business structures which reduce risk of disputes e.g. partnering
3.1.2.1.7 adopt good proj & commercial man practicies
3.1.2.1.8 pre-contract reviews 2 avoid any issues
3.1.2.1.9 periodical risk reviews
3.1.2.1.10 tiered DR mechanisms in contrats
3.1.2.1.11 use of dispute board and prj mediation
3.2 project CA
3.2.1 client decide what he wants (time, cost, qual, early start)
3.2.2 decide appropriate procurement route
3.2.3 know the deal with MC - allowcation of risk
3.2.4 put in writing all agreed terms & contract docs
3.2.5 single pt of responsibility e.g. avoid dispute through bad comminucation
3.2.6 ensure the client is always aware of scope/fee inc and costs through financial reporting
4 What is dispute resolution?
4.1 actions 2 resolve contractural disputes
5 Adjudication
5.1 not legally binding
5.2 adj forms an opinion based on evidence
5.3 parties may accept decision or may agreed to take dispute to a legally binding arbitration or commence litigation
5.4 referring party: give notice to all others 2 go 4 arbitration
5.5 fee for adjudication - paid by both parties
5.5.1 "pay now, argue later" method adopted in Adj
5.6 Quick & cost effective
5.7 Advantages:
5.7.1 Independent assessment
5.7.2 quick decision
5.7.3 binding for duration of contract wrks
5.7.4 can b reassessed after completion of wrks
5.8 Disadvantages:
5.8.1 Quick decision
5.8.2 used as an ambushing tactic
5.8.3 can b reassessed after wks complete
6 Adjudication vs Arbitration
6.1 Arbitration :
6.1.1 consentual process
6.1.2 no time limit
6.1.3 legally binding
6.2 Adjudication:
6.2.1 right by statute
6.2.2 time is limited
6.2.3 not legally binding
7 Arbitration
7.1 settlement of a dispute by an Arbitrator
7.2 Arbitrator decides the case and award
7.3 judgement can b incorporated in 2 decree or court
7.4 Decision = arb knowledge, evidence, enquiries 2
7.5 Arbitration Act 1996
7.5.1 led to the drafting of 2 sets of rules
7.5.1.1 CIMAR (con ind model arb rules 1996)
7.5.1.2 ICE arb procedures 1997
7.6 Advantages:
7.6.1 cheap
7.6.2 Quick
7.6.3 suitable 4 complex tech matters
7.6.4 conveinient
7.6.5 private
7.6.6 commercially expedient
8 The Technology and Construction Court (TCC)
9 The 4 C's of ADR
9.1 Consensus (2 find a business solution)
9.2 Continuity (solution 4 on going business relationship
9.3 Control (ability 2 tailor a solution geared 4 a business result)
9.4 Confidentiality (avoid harmful revelations 2 the public

Media attachments