The Construction Disputes Law Review: Editor's Preface
The number of construction disputes is increasing and thus The Construction Disputes Law Review arrives with perfect timing. A number of textbooks on construction law cover the same general legal topography and do so in a similar format constructed around national case law or local rules. This book is different because it recognises the jurisprudential importance of comparative analysis of the key problems in international construction law. This area is complex. International construction law creates a blend of legal questions and there is naturally a high demand for answers. This book seeks to fulfil that demand. Whether the reader is a company executive, a private practitioner, an in-house counsel or an arbitrator, I hope very much that this first edition will prove useful in navigating the complex world of international construction law. In that context, I extend warmly my gratitude to the contributors from some of the world's leading law firms who have given such valuable support and cooperation in the preparation of this work.
The Review is not intended to be an exhaustive guide to case law and legislation. It covers comprehensively all aspects of international construction law but does so with a much greater emphasis on the practical aspects and the practical implications of the case law, statutes and procedures. My thinking was to provide an authoritative, clear and accessible text on construction law to assist both those who draft international construction contracts and those who deal primarily with dispute resolution (whether statutory adjudication, mediation, arbitration or litigation). We have focused on time bars as condition precedent to entitlement; right to payment for variations and varied scope of work; concurrent delay; suspension and termination; penalties and liquidated damages; defects correction and liabilities; bonds and guarantees; and overall caps on liability. These topics very often form the battleground in disputes and are constantly in legal flux. For example, the Singapore Court of Appeal in CAJ v. CAI1 recently provided more guidance on apportionment in the context of concurrent delay to completion.
I express, once again, my gratitude to all the excellent contributors from all the jurisdictions represented in The Construction Disputes Law Review. Their biographies can be found in Appendix 1 and these highlight the wealth of experience and learning from which we are fortunate enough to benefit. I also thank the team at Law Business Research, who have excelled in managing and helping to deliver a project of this size and scope.
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
1 CAJ v. CAI  SGCA 102.