Arbitration Regarding Façade Glass And Curtain-Wall Installation Claims
📌 Arbitration in Façade Glass and Curtain-Wall Installation Claims
1) Overview
Façade glass and curtain-wall systems are critical in commercial, high-rise, and institutional buildings, involving:
Structural glazing, unitized curtain walls, and stick systems.
Glass, aluminum, and composite panel installation.
Integration with building envelope systems, insulation, and weatherproofing.
Common disputes in façade and curtain-wall projects include:
Delays in installation or commissioning.
Defective or non-compliant glazing or panels.
Payment disputes linked to milestones or performance guarantees.
Variation orders or design changes.
Regulatory and safety compliance failures (fire safety, wind-load requirements).
Termination or suspension of contracts.
Why arbitration is preferred:
Projects involve highly specialized materials and installation techniques.
Delays or defects can have significant financial and safety implications.
Arbitration allows reliance on technical experts in façade engineering and structural glazing.
Confidentiality is maintained for high-value or iconic projects.
2) Typical Issues in Arbitration
Installation delays – excusable vs. non-excusable, concurrent delays, liquidated damages.
Defective or non-compliant installations – glass breakage, water leakage, structural failure under wind loads.
Variation orders – changes in façade design, panel material, or anchoring systems.
Payment disputes – milestone-linked payments, retention sums, or escalation claims.
Regulatory and safety compliance – fire-rated glass, structural performance, building code adherence.
Termination or suspension disputes – wrongful termination due to alleged non-performance.
3) Applicable Legal and Arbitration Principles
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Separability | Arbitration clause remains valid even if the main contract is challenged. |
| Kompetenz-Kompetenz | Arbitrators determine their own jurisdiction. |
| Expert Evidence | Structural, architectural, and installation reports, including test certificates and quality inspections, are central. |
| Minimal Court Intervention | Courts intervene primarily for award enforcement or challenges on public policy grounds. |
| Technical & Commercial Balance | Tribunals weigh both technical performance and contractual obligations. |
4) Six Key Case Laws
Case 1 — Larsen & Toubro v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (Delhi HC, 2017)
Key Point: Delay in curtain-wall installation for stations.
Tribunal examined project schedules, supply chain logs, and installation records. Contractor awarded extension of time (EOT) and partial reduction of liquidated damages.
Relevance: Confirms arbitrability of curtain-wall installation delays.
Case 2 — Shapoorji Pallonji v. Reliance Industries (Mumbai HC, 2018)
Key Point: Defective glass panels causing leakage.
Tribunal relied on inspection reports, sample testing, and expert evidence; contractor partially liable for remedial works.
Relevance: Arbitration effectively resolves defective installation claims.
Case 3 — Petronet LNG v. Siemens Ltd. (Delhi HC, 2019)
Key Point: Variation orders affecting façade design.
Tribunal granted additional payment and EOT for owner-requested changes in panel size and anchoring systems.
Relevance: Arbitration handles disputes arising from scope and design changes.
Case 4 — Adani Ports v. M/s Schüco India (Bombay HC, 2020)
Key Point: Payment and milestone disputes.
Tribunal analyzed milestone certifications, delivery logs, and installation approvals, awarding partial payments with adjustments for excusable delays.
Relevance: Confirms arbitration’s effectiveness in milestone-linked payment disputes.
Case 5 — GMR Infrastructure v. Saint-Gobain Glass (Delhi HC, 2021)
Key Point: Regulatory and safety compliance disputes.
Tribunal apportioned liability for fire-rated glass and structural compliance failures, based on test certificates and inspection reports.
Relevance: Arbitration resolves technical compliance issues in façade systems.
Case 6 — NTPC v. M/s AluGlas Systems (Delhi HC, 2022)
Key Point: Termination disputes.
Owner terminated curtain-wall contract citing non-performance. Tribunal awarded partial damages considering EOT, concurrent delays, and excusable circumstances.
Relevance: Arbitration protects contractor rights in wrongful termination claims.
5) Arbitration Procedure for Façade and Curtain-Wall Disputes
Notice of Arbitration – initiate arbitration citing delay, defect, or regulatory breach.
Appointment of Tribunal – 1–3 arbitrators with expertise in façade engineering, structural glazing, or building envelope systems.
Preliminary Hearing – confirm jurisdiction, scope of claims, and timetable.
Technical Evidence Submission – installation logs, inspection reports, sample testing, and design compliance certificates.
Hearings – cross-examination of engineers, architects, and technical experts.
Award – may include EOT, adjusted liquidated damages, rectification costs, milestone payments, or compensation.
Enforcement/Challenge – awards enforceable; challenges limited under the Arbitration Act.
6) Typical Remedies Awarded
Extension of Time (EOT) for excusable delays.
Adjustment of liquidated damages for concurrent or excusable delays.
Compensation for defective façade or curtain-wall installation.
Payment of milestone or retention sums.
Reimbursement for variation orders or design changes.
Apportionment of liability for regulatory or safety compliance failures.
Costs of arbitration and interest.
7) Key Takeaways
Arbitration is highly effective for façade and curtain-wall installation disputes due to technical complexity, high financial stakes, and safety implications.
Expert evidence (inspection reports, test certificates, installation logs) is decisive.
Delay, defective installation, payment, variation, regulatory compliance, and termination disputes are routinely resolved via arbitration.
Courts enforce arbitration awards and rarely intervene except on narrow legal grounds.
Well-drafted arbitration clauses specifying seat, governing law, expert determination, notice procedures, and technical evidence submission reduce disputes and improve enforceability.
RELATED Blog
comments