Arbitration Regarding Faulty Industrial Robotics And Automation Systems.
I. Arbitration in Disputes Concerning Faulty Industrial Robotics and Automation Systems
1. Industrial Context
Factories, warehouses, and production lines increasingly rely on industrial robotics and automation systems, such as:
Robotic arms for assembly, welding, painting, or material handling
Automated guided vehicles (AGVs)
Programmable logic controllers (PLCs) and SCADA systems
Robotics-integrated production lines
Failures in these systems can result in:
Production stoppages and revenue loss
Safety hazards to personnel
Damage to goods or equipment
Breach of contract with end-customers
Due to the high complexity, value, and technology-driven nature of these projects, arbitration is often chosen over litigation.
2. Common Causes of Arbitration
a) Manufacturing and Component Defects
Defective sensors, motors, actuators, or grippers
Faulty PLCs or software modules
Substandard materials used in robotic arms or chassis
b) Design and Programming Defects
Incorrect kinematics or path planning
Safety interlock failures
Inadequate integration with existing production lines
c) Installation and Commissioning Issues
Misalignment of robots and conveyors
Software and hardware incompatibility
Insufficient testing of fail-safes and emergency stops
d) Operational and Maintenance Failures
Lack of operator training or manuals
Neglect of maintenance schedules
Poor documentation of changes to automation scripts
3. Key Legal and Contractual Issues Considered by Arbitrators
a) Fitness-for-Purpose and Warranty Obligations
Many contracts include guarantees of operational performance for a period
Arbitrators distinguish reasonable skill and care from absolute performance obligations
b) Liability for Latent Defects
Defects may manifest only after several production cycles
Contractual defect liability periods and limitation clauses are carefully analyzed
c) Safety and Statutory Compliance
Compliance with workplace safety, ISO 10218 for industrial robots, and local regulations
Non-compliance can result in strict liability for damages
d) Damages Assessment
Loss of production, spoilage, or defective products
Repair or replacement costs
Consequential losses (delays in customer deliveries)
e) Subcontractor vs Main Contractor Liability
Often, the manufacturer supplies the robots and the integrator installs them
Arbitrators assess responsibility based on contracts and warranty clauses
4. Remedies Typically Awarded
Repair, replacement, or retrofitting of defective robotic systems
Compensation for downtime and lost production
Liquidated damages for delay in commissioning
Extension of defect liability period
Recovery of expert and testing costs
II. Case Laws Relevant to Industrial Robotics and Automation Arbitration
1. Young & Marten Ltd v McManus Childs Ltd (1969, House of Lords)
Principle: Implied warranty of fitness-for-purpose for supplied and installed goods.
Relevance: Applied to robots and automation systems supplied by contractors.
2. MT Højgaard A/S v E.ON Climate & Renewables UK Ltd (2017, UK Supreme Court)
Principle: Fitness-for-purpose obligations prevail over mere compliance with technical standards.
Relevance: Used where robots comply with standards but fail operationally.
3. Greaves & Co (Contractors) Ltd v Baynham Meikle & Partners (1975, UK Court of Appeal)
Principle: Designers and integrators owe a duty to ensure system adequacy for intended use.
Relevance: Critical in automation systems integration failures.
4. ONGC Ltd v Saw Pipes Ltd (2003, Supreme Court of India)
Principle: Breach of express contractual obligations constitutes patent illegality.
Relevance: Invoked when robotics or automation systems fail to meet contract specifications.
5. McDermott International Inc v Burn Standard Co Ltd (2006, Supreme Court of India)
Principle: Arbitrator’s technical evaluation is final unless perverse.
Relevance: Supports awards based on expert findings for robotic and automation failures.
6. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd v Dewan Chand Ram Saran (2012, Supreme Court of India)
Principle: Arbitrator is the final authority on technical evidence.
Relevance: Applied when there are competing expert reports on robotic system failures.
7. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd v Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd (2007, Supreme Court of India)
Principle: Supply of defective materials and delayed rectification justify damages.
Relevance: Used when substandard robotic components or controllers cause operational disruption.
III. Practical Arbitration Insights for Industrial Robotics
Technical evidence is decisive: Robot logs, PLC history, software versioning, and expert testing
Latent defects are common: Issues like sensor drift or PLC misprogramming may surface after months
Fitness-for-purpose clauses increase supplier liability
Integration errors often attract complex liability disputes
Documentation and commissioning reports are critical
RELATED Blog
comments