Civil Engineering July 2021 | Vol 29 No 6

16 July 2021 Civil Engineering to bring about a settlement of the dispute between the parties. The neutral plays a more proactive role than in the case of mediation, assisting the parties in reaching a shared understanding of the issues in dispute and finding a mutually agreeable solution. He may be asked by the parties to come up with ideas re- garding a settlement and coax the parties towards a particular type of settlement. In this regard, he may be required to go back and forth between the parties. During conciliation, the parties may not even sit down together until the final stages of the deliberations. The best work is sometimes done in the private ses- sions (each party alone with the neutral) where the parties are free to discuss their situation in a safe and confidential environment. Evaluation, in contrast, involves the neutral and/or expert giving an assess- ment, usually in writing, at the end of the procedure of what the outcome could be if the disputing parties have failed to reach a settlement. It is then up to the parties to consider the assessment. Mediation tends to be more formal than conciliation or evaluation. The mediation clause was introduced into the GCC in 1982 and into the JBCC in 1991. With the growing use of internationally accepted contracts like the FIDIC and the introduction of con- tractual adjudication and Dispute Review Boards, the concept of ‘mediation’ has gradually been replaced in some of the standard construction contracts by the concept of ‘amicable settlement’ (techniques). From the above discussion it is clear that there are multiple amicable settle- ment techniques, including discussions, mediation, conciliation, evaluation, caucusing, expert opinion, expert deter- mination, executive panels and senior management representatives from both parties. It is advisable to obtain training in the different techniques so that, if a dispute arises, the optimal approach can be recommended and/or applied. Understanding the differences between, and the value of, the various approaches to amicable settlement can also go a long way towards minimising the adverse effects of construction disputes and ensuring that more expensive dispute resolution options, such as arbitration and litigation, are largely avoided.  REFERENCE Linden Gardens v Lenasta Sludge Disposal [1994] AC 85 (HL). SiteLink ® Remote Testing Technology • Enables engineers to conduct Dynamic Foundation Testing, Thermal Integrity Profiling, Shaft Verticality and/or Shaft Base Cleanliness Assessments remotely from any location • Eliminates scheduling conflicts and travel to keep the project moving, saving time and money • Project data is assessed in near real time To learn more about SiteLink technology, visit www.pile.com. Adv. Hubert Thompson is admitted as an Amicable Settlement Facilitator, Adjudicator and Arbitrator on the SAICE President’s List. He is the presenter of the courses ‘The legal process dealing with construction disputes’ and ‘Adjudication and Arbitration: How to deal with challenges to jurisdiction?’ It is advisable to obtain training in the different techniques so that, if a dispute arises, the optimal approach can be recommended and/or applied