Focusing on Financial Efficiency of Projects through Enforceability of FIDIC Dispute Adjudication Board Decisions with Special Respect to Singapore Trend in PERSERO Case

Disputes are inseparable part of complicated cycles of international long-term construction contracts which deal with huge financial and human resources. How to deal with disputes and settle them is more crucial. A new trend in applying the specialized dispute boards for settlement of the disputes has emerged in international construction contracts in recent years. In times of disputes, these boards decide that the issued decision is binding on the parties based on FIDIC Conditions. However, there is no enforcement mechanism when failure to comply with such a decision occurs, and the procedure thereof is also unclear. These kinds of decisions are mostly regarded as contractual obligations and there is not enough supporting judicial opinion to uphold them seriously. Recently, the High Court and the Court of Appeal in Singapore have enforced binding but not final Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB) decisions. In Singapore, these judicial awards make it clear how the term of reference to DAB could be interpreted. The procedure might be a useful guideline for other courts and arbitral tribunals which are dealing with the enforcement of DAB decisions in different countries as a challenging issue. This study tries to uphold the view that since the binding but not final DAB Decisions could be enforced through the interim awards by a court, a fortiori, the binding and final ones could be regarded as arbitral awards and enforced as final arbitral awards. It is also argued that recognition and enforcement of FIDIC DAB decisions could to some useful extent guarantee the cash flow and financial efficiency of construction projects. Finally, the guarantees for the failure in the enforcement of decisions are debated.