ARBITRATION CASES

1. Arbitration Cases
Presentation by: Parvez Ahmad Hashmat
Entry#: 2019CET2027
Submitted to: Prof. K.N JHA
Indian Institute of Technology-Delhi- 2020

2. Case 1:
Haleem Khapalwak Construction Company V/S Ministry of Finance,
2018/Feb/08.
The project of building a DATA Archive for Kandahar Custom was awarded
to Haleem Khapalwak Construction Company on 2018/Jan/01 from the
ministry of finance of Afghanistan with an estimated cost of $53600.
2

3. Claimant’s (Contractor’s) Case:
i. Clear columns height of the structure is differing in drawings and design,
resulting in a change of 5cum volume of work in the BOQ that costs $900.
ii. Claim for additional expenses incurred toward the stone masonry work for
inside ring beams, which isn’t included in the BOQ that costs
approximately $5000.
Respondent Defense:
The clarity of drawings and specifications are vibrant. The contractor
estimated his bidding from BOQ not observing the drawings accurately; thus,
the specified money shouldn’t be awarded to the claimant.
3

4. Arbitrator Findings and Resolution:
4
According to the laws of Afghanistan, there is no arbitrator in governmental
projects, but instead, the respective department representative is introduced.
A Monitor engineer of the urban development and housing department of
Kandahar was stated as an arbitrator as per governmental rules to go through
claim identification and resolve the dispute and case.

5. Arbitrator Findings and Resolution:
5
Resolution Claim 1:
 The claimant should go with the 440 cm clear height of the columns as the
calculations in the BOQ for estimating the work volume were corresponding to it.
Resolution Claim 2:
The arbitrator ended the second claim officially, as the mentioned portion of
estimation was missing due to an error of the estimator of the project.
 Estimation for the stone masonry work for the inside ring beams was prepared by
the department of urban development and housing as per the request of the
Kandahar custom department and the decision of the arbitrator.
 The contractor was awarded $3500 for the stone masonry of inside ring beams
along with a time extension of one month in the contract agreement due to a loss
of time during the dispute.

6. Case 2:
MW High Tech Projects V Balfour Beatty Kilpatrick Ltd,
2020/June/05
6
Facts of the case:
The claim arose out of a sub-contract (“the Contract”) between the claimant (“MW”) and the
defendant (“BBK”) pursuant to which MW engaged BBK to carry out mechanical and electrical
services in relation to the construction of a new laboratory building at Dansom Lane, Hull for a
contract price of £23,370,077.
The defendant, (BBK) served five notices of delay between March 2018 and February 2019, as
required by clause 2.17 of the parties. The claimant, MW, did not respond to these notices or
request further particulars to support the extension of time (EOT) claimed within the 16-week
period specified in clause 2.18.
Delays occurred to the works and in August 2019, BBK referred to arbitration its claim for an EOT.
On 10 October 2019 the arbitrator published his decision, awarding BBK the full EOT required and
ordering MW to pay the arbitrator’s fees.

7. 7
MW (Claimant’s) Case:
MW argued that the arbitrator did not have the authority to decide the dispute
and the arbitration decision was invalid. (BBK) had served a new delay report (“the
Goodman Report”) on MW eight days before beginning the arbitration.
BBK (Respondent) Defense:
BBK’s case is that the arbitrator had the authority to determine the dispute and the
arbitration decision was valid. BBK gave MW notice of delay and claimed an
extension of time by the letters between March 2018 and February 2019, in
compliance with the contractual requirements. By letter dated 30 July 2019, BBK
provided MW with the Goodman Report in support of its claims and invited MW to
grant the extension of time within seven days. MW failed to respond to the letter.

8. Judgment (Court’s Decision)
8
i) The arbitrator had the authority to determine the dispute referred to him by the
defendant on 7 August 2019.
ii) The arbitrator’s decision dated 10 October 2019 is valid and binding on the parties.
iii) The Goodman report was not a fresh notification.
iv) The claimant shall pay the defendant the sum of £37,251, being the amount paid
by the defendant to the arbitrator in respect of his fees.

9. Thank You