International Construction Law Review
INTRODUCTION
HUMPHREY LLOYD, DOUGLAS S JONES
This issue opens with an article by Andrew Chew and Meredith Riley of the Australian firm Corrs Chambers Westgarth entitled “What is going on with BIM? On the Way to 6D” (at page 253). Their contribution notes that while the use of Building Information Modelling (BIM) is becoming increasingly commonplace, indeed in some contexts it is mandatory, questions remain as to how best to manage the legal framework for projects that utilise BIM. The authors outline very clearly some relevant issues, and discuss some potential solutions. One aspect of the article is the discussion of partnering as a viable option for managing the relationships that arise in projects that utilise BIM. As the authors note, partnering has fallen out of favour in some jurisdictions, such as Australia. Thus, it is interesting to see it being revived in discussions about BIM, at the forefront of industry practice. The article also mentions the use of BIM as a tool for facilities management, in addition to the design and construct phases of the project. The development of technological tools that bring together different phases of a single project change the dynamics of the project, further blurring the lines between the different phases and roles in a given project. Legal frameworks that take this into account are still being developed, and careful consideration is required. To that end, this article is a valuable contribution to the growing body of literature on issues concerning BIM.
Next (at page 266),we have a slightly controversial contribution from Christian Johansen, a partner of Bruun & Hjejle, Copenhagen. Prompted by the inclusion of provision for emergency arbitration in the 2012 ICC Rules of Arbitration, Mr Johansen looks at such provisions, which are found in many other institutional rules, but from the perspective of a construction lawyer. Are they suited to the unique nature of construction disputes? Mr Johansen argues that construction disputes do not easily lend themselves to emergency arbitration, in which a binding decision is imposed upon the parties subject to review at final arbitration. Aside from some wider reservations that are held about emergency arbitrator provisions, such as the uncertainty as to the enforceability of emergency arbitrator decisions, the author identifies a number of issues that are specific to construction disputes. He concludes that, while emergency arbitrator provisions may be helpful for some classes of disputes, they are ill-suited to construction disputes, and parties should consider opting out of their application.
Our next article, from Tony Dymond and Michael Mendelblat, of Herbert Smith Freehills LLP, covers the 2013 suite of the Institution of Chemical Engineers (I Chem E) Forms of Contract (at page 274). The forms of contract were initially primarily used within the petrochemical industries, but their use has since become much more widespread, and they are suitable to be adopted for any types of construction. The authors examine the new suite, comparing it to previous editions of the I Chem E
The International Construction Law Review [2013
250