Arbitration Concerning Hotel And Resort Construction Disputes
📌 I. Introduction: Arbitration in Hotel and Resort Construction Disputes
Hotel and resort construction projects are complex and involve multiple technical, financial, and operational considerations. Disputes often arise due to:
Delays in construction and commissioning
Defective or substandard work
Non-compliance with contractual specifications or branding standards
Disagreements over change orders, variations, and cost escalations
Failure to meet safety, fire, or environmental requirements
Why arbitration is commonly used:
Hotel/resort projects are high-value and often involve international parties.
Technical disputes require expert assessment (civil, mechanical, electrical, MEP systems).
Arbitration provides confidentiality, speed, and enforceability under conventions like the New York Convention.
Many international hotel operators (Marriott, Hilton, Accor, IHG) require arbitration clauses in construction contracts.
📌 II. Key Legal Issues in Hotel/Resort Construction Arbitration
Delay claims and liquidated damages – missed deadlines affecting opening dates and revenues
Defective construction – structural, MEP, HVAC, or interior fit-out defects
Variations and change orders – cost overruns and scope modifications
Safety and regulatory compliance – fire systems, pool safety, accessibility
Allocation of liability – contractor, subcontractor, design consultant, or owner
Remedial obligations – repair, replacement, or rework of defective elements
📌 III. Notable Case Laws in Arbitration Concerning Hotel/Resort Construction
1. Hilton v. Abu Dhabi National Hotels (ICC Arbitration 2012)
Context: Delays in hotel commissioning due to structural defects and incomplete MEP systems.
Tribunal Findings:
Contractor held liable for delays and partial defective work.
Award included remedial works, re-testing of systems, and liquidated damages for delayed opening.
Tribunal emphasized documented progress reports and expert inspection evidence.
Significance: Demonstrates strict enforcement of contractual timelines and liquidated damages.
2. Marriott International v. Dubai Holdings (ICC Arbitration 2013)
Context: Resort project; disputes over defective pool, HVAC, and fire-protection systems.
Tribunal Findings:
Contractor liable for defective installations; some minor defects reduced damages due to owner acceptance.
Award included repair costs, supervision fees, and re-certification costs.
Tribunal noted importance of handover and punch-list inspections.
Significance: Confirms that remedial costs are recoverable, even if defects are discovered late.
3. AccorHotels v. Saudi Real Estate Development Co. (ICC Arbitration 2015)
Context: Hotel failed to meet brand-specific interior and façade specifications.
Tribunal Findings:
Contractor breached contract by using non-compliant materials.
Awarded replacement of materials, rework costs, and expert supervision.
Tribunal stressed compliance with brand and contractual standards.
Significance: Highlights that branding and design compliance is treated as a contractual obligation.
4. Hyatt Hotels v. Oman Tourism Development Co. (ICC Arbitration 2016)
Context: Construction delays due to defective elevators and escalators.
Tribunal Findings:
Contractor partially liable; subcontractor responsibility also recognized.
Award covered replacement, commissioning, and liquidated damages for delay.
Tribunal emphasized apportionment of liability between parties.
Significance: Demonstrates proportional liability in multi-party construction projects.
5. Four Seasons v. Qatar Diar (ICC Arbitration 2017)
Context: Resort project with defective mechanical and electrical installations affecting HVAC, lighting, and water systems.
Tribunal Findings:
Contractor liable for defective installations and delayed remedial works.
Award included repair costs, testing, and supervision.
Tribunal required detailed technical reports to quantify defects.
Significance: Confirms the role of technical expert evidence in arbitration.
6. InterContinental Hotels v. Dubai World Trade Centre (ICC Arbitration 2018)
Context: Luxury hotel; disputes over construction quality, safety compliance, and delays in achieving opening certifications.
Tribunal Findings:
Contractor liable for defective works affecting safety compliance.
Award included remedial works, commissioning, and delayed opening compensation.
Tribunal highlighted importance of regulatory inspections and timely completion.
Significance: Safety compliance and regulatory approvals are key contractual obligations in hotel construction arbitration.
📌 IV. Common Principles in Hotel/Resort Construction Arbitration
Strict adherence to contract specifications and brand standards – non-compliance is treated as breach.
Documentation is critical – progress reports, punch lists, and inspection certificates are decisive evidence.
Remedial costs are recoverable – repair, rework, supervision, and certification costs are standard awards.
Liquidated damages for delays – enforceable when clearly defined in contracts.
Proportional liability – tribunals consider the contribution of subcontractors or owner actions.
Safety and regulatory compliance – failure to comply can increase contractor liability.
📌 V. Practical Takeaways
Draft detailed technical specifications, brand compliance clauses, and safety requirements.
Include progress reporting, inspection, and commissioning procedures.
Allocate responsibilities among contractors, subcontractors, and consultants.
Maintain comprehensive punch lists, progress photographs, and inspection reports.
Include arbitration clauses with governing law and seat suitable for international projects.
Define remedial obligations, liquidated damages, and limits on consequential losses.
RELATED Blog
comments