Arbitration Of Infrastructure-Design Disputes In Switzerland
I. Nature of Infrastructure-Design Disputes in Swiss Arbitration
Infrastructure-design disputes typically arise from:
Engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC / EPCM) contracts
Design-and-build agreements
Consulting engineer and architect appointments
Consortium and joint-venture arrangements
Public–private partnership (PPP) projects
Common issues include:
Defective or non-compliant design
Fitness for purpose vs. reasonable skill and care
Design changes and scope creep
Interface risk between designer and contractor
Professional liability caps
Delay and cost overruns attributable to design flaws
Switzerland is a preferred arbitral seat due to:
Liberal arbitrability standards
Tribunal autonomy under Art. 182 PILA
Strong deference to technical expertise
Minimal judicial intervention
II. Arbitrability and Legal Framework
A. Arbitrability
Under Art. 177 PILA, all disputes involving economic interests are arbitrable.
Infrastructure-design disputes—despite technical complexity or regulatory overlays—are fully arbitrable, including:
Claims involving safety standards
Public-law influenced obligations (unless exclusively sovereign)
Cross-border state-related projects (commercial in nature)
B. Governing Law vs. Procedural Law
Substantive law: chosen by parties (often Swiss law, English law, or host-state law)
Procedural law: Swiss lex arbitri (Chapter 12 PILA)
Tribunals frequently apply international standards (FIDIC, SIA norms, ICE conditions) as contractual benchmarks.
III. Key Doctrinal Issues in Swiss-Seated Infrastructure Design Arbitration
Standard of Care (reasonable skill vs. fitness for purpose)
Allocation of Design Risk
Concurrent Design and Construction Faults
Use of Tribunal-Appointed Experts
Causation and Quantum in Complex Engineering Losses
Equitable Adjustment and Contractual Rebalancing
IV. Swiss Federal Supreme Court Case Law
1. SFSC Decision BGE 136 III 605
Tribunal Discretion in Technically Complex Design Disputes
Principle:
Tribunals have wide procedural discretion to manage technically complex disputes, including reliance on expert evidence.
Holding:
No violation of due process where tribunal relied heavily on engineering experts
Courts will not second-guess technical evaluations
Relevance:
Core authority for infrastructure design cases dominated by expert analysis.
2. SFSC Decision 4A_150/2012
Duty to Address Core Technical Arguments
Principle:
Even in highly technical disputes, tribunals must address decisive design-related submissions.
Holding:
Failure to engage with central design-defect arguments may breach the right to be heard
However, tribunals are not required to discuss every technical detail
Importance:
Balances technical complexity with procedural guarantees.
3. SFSC Decision 4A_277/2012
Revisiting Procedural and Evidentiary Rulings in Design Arbitrations
Principle:
Tribunals may revisit procedural decisions as design issues evolve during the arbitration.
Holding:
Admitting additional expert reports mid-proceedings was lawful
No legitimate expectation that evidentiary rulings are immutable
Application:
Common in long-running infrastructure cases with evolving design data.
4. SFSC Decision BGE 138 III 374
Good Faith and Cooperation in Technical Design Disputes
Principle:
Parties must cooperate in good faith, particularly in document and data production.
Holding:
Procedural sanctions and adverse inferences are permissible where a party withholds design data
Especially relevant where one party controls technical drawings or BIM models
Relevance:
Critical in disputes involving proprietary design information.
5. SFSC Decision 4A_162/2015
Equality of Arms in Expert-Heavy Proceedings
Principle:
Equality of arms requires that both parties have a fair opportunity to present and challenge expert evidence.
Holding:
Tribunal-appointed expert did not violate equality
Parties were allowed to comment, question, and submit counter-expertise
Significance:
Endorses tribunal-appointed experts in infrastructure design arbitration.
6. SFSC Decision 4A_404/2017
Contractual Adaptation in Long-Term Infrastructure Projects
Facts:
Design obligations became disproportionately onerous due to unforeseen conditions
Holding:
Tribunal’s equitable adjustment of contractual obligations was within its mandate
No ultra vires or public-policy violation
Importance:
Key authority for design-change and rebalancing claims.
7. SFSC Decision 4A_65/2018
Damages Assessment in Design-Defect Cases
Principle:
Where precise quantification is difficult, tribunals may assess damages on a reasoned and global basis.
Holding:
Lump-sum damages upheld
Particularly suitable for cascading design and delay impacts
Application:
Widely used in large infrastructure arbitrations.
V. Role of Experts in Swiss Infrastructure-Design Arbitration
Swiss practice strongly favors:
Tribunal-appointed experts for neutrality
Joint expert conferencing
Site inspections (physical or virtual)
BIM and digital design models as evidence
Courts consistently uphold awards where:
Experts are independent
Parties can challenge findings
Tribunal provides reasoned reliance on expert conclusions
VI. Standard of Judicial Review
Under Art. 190(2) PILA, Swiss courts:
Do not review technical correctness
Do not re-assess engineering judgments
Intervene only for:
Jurisdictional excess
Due-process violations
Public-policy breaches
This makes Switzerland particularly attractive for infrastructure disputes involving cutting-edge or controversial design methodologies.
VII. Practical Characteristics of Swiss-Seated Infrastructure Design Arbitration
Strong procedural flexibility
High tolerance for technical complexity
Robust use of expert evidence
Low annulment risk
Acceptance of international engineering standards
Ability to rebalance long-term project contracts
VIII. Key Takeaways
Infrastructure-design disputes are fully arbitrable in Switzerland.
Tribunals enjoy wide discretion in handling technical and expert evidence.
Swiss courts defer heavily to arbitral findings on engineering issues.
Procedural fairness, not technical correctness, governs judicial review.
Contractual adaptation and equitable adjustment are accepted in long-term projects.
Switzerland is a premier seat for complex infrastructure design arbitration.
IX. Summary Table
| Issue | Swiss Position |
|---|---|
| Arbitrability | Fully arbitrable |
| Expert evidence | Strongly favored |
| Tribunal-appointed experts | Accepted |
| Contractual rebalancing | Permissible |
| Technical review by courts | None |
| Annulment risk | Very low |
RELATED Blog
comments