Arbitration Regarding Defective Curtain Wall And Glazing Systems In High-Rise Buildings
1. Introduction: Curtain Wall and Glazing Systems
Curtain wall systems and glazing installations are essential elements in high-rise buildings. They provide:
Structural façade and weatherproofing
Thermal insulation and energy efficiency
Aesthetic appeal and daylighting
Safety against wind loads, impact, and fire hazards
Contracts for such systems are typically design, supply, installation, and commissioning (DSIC) or EPC turnkey contracts, which include:
Design approvals and engineering specifications
Material supply and fabrication
Installation and alignment tolerances
Warranty and defects liability clauses
Defects in these systems often result in arbitration, especially due to:
Water leakage or air infiltration
Glass breakage or failure of anchorages
Poor thermal performance
Non-compliance with fire and safety standards
2. Common Causes of Arbitration
(a) Design Deficiencies
Inadequate wind load or structural calculations
Improper selection of glazing thickness or coatings
Faulty thermal or acoustic performance calculations
(b) Material and Fabrication Defects
Substandard glass or aluminum frames
Corrosion or premature degradation of anchors and fasteners
Manufacturing defects in double-glazed units
(c) Installation Deficiencies
Misalignment or improper sealing of panels
Faulty waterproofing or silicone joint application
Improper anchorage or structural connections
(d) Performance Failures
Air or water leakage under normal conditions
Glass breakage or façade failure under wind or seismic loads
Thermal bridging or condensation issues
(e) Regulatory Non-Compliance
Deviation from fire safety and façade codes
Non-compliance with building codes, energy efficiency standards, or local façade regulations
3. Issues Typically Examined by Arbitral Tribunals
Whether the curtain wall and glazing systems conform to design and contractual specifications
Whether defects result from design, material, or installation failures
Applicability of warranty and defects liability clauses
Calculation of damages for rectification, replacement, and consequential losses
Responsibility for third-party inspections or remediation costs
4. Legal Principles Governing Arbitration
(i) Fitness for Purpose
Systems must perform intended functions under operational, weather, and safety conditions.
(ii) Latent vs. Patent Defects
Hidden defects discovered post-installation (e.g., anchor corrosion, joint leakage) still attract contractor liability.
(iii) Compliance with Safety and Regulatory Standards
Non-adherence to building codes, fire, or façade regulations constitutes a contractual breach.
(iv) Engineer or PMC Certification
Certification or inspection reports do not absolve contractor liability if defects emerge later.
(v) Limited Judicial Review
Courts generally defer to arbitral technical assessments, intervening only when awards are perverse, illegal, or violate public policy.
5. Important Case Laws (At Least 6)
1. ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd.
Supreme Court of India
Principle: Breach of express contractual obligations constitutes patent illegality.
Relevance: Applied when curtain wall or glazing systems fail to meet contract specifications.
2. McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd.
Supreme Court of India
Principle: Arbitral tribunals are the final judges of technical facts.
Relevance: Critical in evaluating technical defects in façade systems based on expert evidence.
3. Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority
Supreme Court of India
Principle: Awards are not disturbed unless they are perverse or violate public policy.
Relevance: Protects arbitral findings in complex technical façade disputes.
4. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Dewan Chand Ram Saran
Supreme Court of India
Principle: Contractual interpretation lies within the arbitrator’s jurisdiction.
Relevance: Applied to disputes over scope of warranty, defects, and rectification obligations.
5. State of Rajasthan v. Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd.
Supreme Court of India
Principle: Latent defects discovered post-completion can give rise to claims.
Relevance: Important for hidden water leakage, glass cracks, or anchor failure in façade systems.
6. Arosan Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of India
Supreme Court of India
Principle: An alternative contractual interpretation does not justify interfering with an arbitral award unless unreasonable.
Relevance: Ensures awards related to defective curtain walls and glazing systems are respected.
7. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir
Supreme Court of India
Principle: Engineer or PMC certification does not bar arbitration claims.
Relevance: Applied when façade systems were certified but failed under operational conditions.
6. Typical Arbitral Findings in Curtain Wall and Glazing Disputes
Contractor liable for failure to meet performance guarantees
Employer justified in engaging third-party rectification or replacement at contractor’s cost
Damages include:
Cost of panel replacement or re-sealing
Downtime or operational disruption in high-rise buildings
Supervision, inspection, and commissioning costs
Consequential losses due to regulatory fines or tenant disruption
7. Practical Contractual Lessons
Specify technical performance guarantees (wind load, water penetration, thermal insulation)
Include detailed warranty and defects liability clauses
Conduct commissioning tests, water penetration tests, and third-party inspections
Maintain installation, inspection, and maintenance records
Include liquidated damages for water ingress, façade failure, or glass breakage
Ensure adherence to fire safety and building code compliance
8. Conclusion
Arbitration involving defective curtain wall and glazing systems in high-rise buildings is highly technical and fact-intensive. Indian jurisprudence emphasizes:
Strict compliance with contractual specifications and regulatory standards
Accountability for latent defects discovered post-installation
Respect for arbitral tribunals’ technical findings
Courts consistently uphold awards, ensuring contractors remain liable for defective systems that compromise safety, aesthetics, energy performance, or building code compliance.
RELATED Blog
comments