Arbitration Regarding Defective Façade, Roofing, And Structural Steel Systems
Arbitration Regarding Defective Façade, Roofing, and Structural Steel Systems
1. Nature of the Disputes
Façade systems, roofing, and structural steel frameworks are critical for the safety, aesthetics, and longevity of buildings, industrial facilities, and infrastructure. Defects can result in:
Structural instability or collapse risks.
Water leakage, corrosion, and thermal inefficiency.
Breach of contractual obligations, warranties, or design specifications.
Delays in project completion and increased maintenance costs.
Arbitration claims for remedial works, compensation, and liability apportionment.
Parties involved typically include building owners, main contractors, façade subcontractors, roofing contractors, structural steel suppliers, design consultants, and engineering auditors.
2. Common Causes of Defective Works
Design errors affecting load-bearing capacity or façade attachment.
Use of substandard materials or protective coatings.
Poor workmanship in installation of steel structures, façades, or roofing systems.
Inadequate waterproofing, corrosion protection, or thermal insulation.
Coordination failures between structural, façade, and MEP contractors.
Non-compliance with building codes, safety, and aesthetic specifications.
Illustrative Case Laws
Case 1: High-Rise Commercial Tower vs Façade Contractor
Facts: Curtain walls leaked and exhibited thermal bridging due to improper sealing and attachment.
Dispute: Breach of workmanship and contractual performance obligations.
Outcome: Contractor required to replace defective panels, reseal joints, and compensate for tenant inconvenience.
Case 2: Industrial Facility vs Roofing Contractor
Facts: Roof membrane failed during heavy rain, causing water ingress and damage to machinery.
Dispute: Breach of warranty and installation defects.
Outcome: Contractor mandated to replace roofing system and reimburse repair costs.
Case 3: Warehouse vs Structural Steel Supplier
Facts: Supplied steel beams did not meet design specifications, causing structural instability.
Dispute: Breach of material standards and contract terms.
Outcome: Supplier held liable; beams replaced and additional labor and downtime costs compensated.
Case 4: Multi-Tenant Residential Project vs Façade and Steel Contractors
Facts: Façade panels detached due to improper anchoring to structural steel.
Dispute: Apportionment of liability for design and installation defects.
Outcome: Tribunal divided responsibility between façade and steel contractors; remedial works required and partial damages awarded.
Case 5: Hotel Project vs Roofing and Cladding Contractor
Facts: Metal roofing corroded prematurely due to improper coatings and material selection.
Dispute: Breach of warranty and non-compliance with contract specifications.
Outcome: Contractor required to replace panels, apply proper coatings, and compensate for repair costs.
Case 6: Office Tower vs Structural Steel Erection Contractor
Facts: Misalignment of steel girders caused stress on façade and roof systems.
Dispute: Breach of installation and quality obligations.
Outcome: Contractor required to realign steel structures, repair affected systems, and pay damages for rework and delay.
Key Takeaways
Defective façade, roofing, and structural steel systems pose serious safety, operational, and financial risks.
Arbitration is often preferred for technical and high-value disputes.
Liability can be shared among contractors, suppliers, and consultants depending on work scope.
Performance guarantees, warranties, and design compliance documentation are critical in arbitration.
Remedies typically include repair, replacement, structural strengthening, and financial compensation for rework and delays.
Preventive measures include independent inspections, quality control, adherence to specifications, and proper coordination between disciplines.
RELATED Blog
comments