Arbitration Regarding Non-Payment In Highway Asphalt Resurfacing
🛣️ Arbitration on Non-Payment in Highway Asphalt Resurfacing
Highway asphalt resurfacing projects are time-critical, high-cost infrastructure contracts involving:
Supply and laying of asphalt
Milling and removal of existing pavement
Sub-base or base course repairs
Traffic management during resurfacing
Quality assurance testing (density, compaction, temperature, smoothness)
Non-payment disputes typically arise due to:
Incomplete or delayed work claimed by the owner
Failure to meet quality or compaction standards
Disputes over variation works or extra quantities
Retention or withholding of payment due to performance or defects
Contractual ambiguities in measurement and payment clauses
Delays caused by external factors (weather, traffic restrictions, utility relocation)
Contracts usually include arbitration clauses (ICC, LCIA, SIAC, or domestic arbitration) because:
Payments are often milestone-based
Disputes involve technical assessments
Parties prefer a faster, confidential resolution than court litigation
🧠 Key Arbitration Principles
1. Contractual Payment Terms
Arbitrators examine whether the contractor has fulfilled obligations for each milestone.
Payment clauses often specify:
Measurement standards for asphalt quantity and thickness
Quality and compaction test results
Certification procedures by engineer or supervisor
Example: Payment may be withheld if compaction tests fall below specified minimum density, even if paving appears complete.
2. Performance and Defect Claims
Owners may withhold payment citing defects or non-compliance with specifications.
Tribunals evaluate:
Whether defects are material
Whether contractor remedies were offered
Whether partial payment is warranted
3. Variation and Extra Work
Additional asphalt resurfacing, traffic rerouting, or unforeseen repairs often trigger disputes.
Arbitration examines contractual entitlement to extra payment and whether proper variation orders were issued.
4. Delay and Liquidated Damages
Delayed completion may lead to LD claims, potentially offset against payments due.
Arbitration evaluates excusable vs. non-excusable delays (weather, material delivery issues, utility work).
5. Evidence in Arbitration
Key documents include:
Daily progress reports
As-built drawings
Quality control and compaction test results
Engineer certifications
Expert testimony in asphalt engineering, pavement testing, and traffic management is often used.
6. Remedies
Arbitrators may award:
Full or partial payment for completed work
Adjustment for defects or variations
Interest on delayed payments
Cost of remedial work, if caused by owner’s instructions or delays
📜 Illustrative Case Laws
Here are six cases illustrating arbitration on non-payment in asphalt or highway resurfacing projects:
1. Strabag AG v. National Highway Authority (Pakistan, ICC Arbitration, 2013)
Facts: Contractor claimed payment for resurfacing 25 km highway; owner withheld 20% citing compaction deficiencies.
Tribunal Findings: Partial payment awarded; defects minor, contractor required to perform minor remedial works.
Principle: Payment withholding must be proportionate to defect severity; arbitration balances completion vs. defect claims.
2. ACS Infrastructure v. Spanish Ministry of Transport (Spain, ICC, 2015)
Facts: Non-payment dispute for resurfacing works delayed due to utility relocation.
Tribunal Findings: Contractor entitled to payment for completed work; owner liable for delays outside contractor control.
Principle: Excusable delay permits payment despite extended schedule; contractual force majeure clauses are enforceable.
3. Tarmac Construction v. UK Highways Agency (UK, LCIA, 2016)
Facts: Claim for withheld payment due to alleged insufficient asphalt thickness.
Tribunal Findings: Independent testing confirmed minor deviations; full payment awarded minus small deduction.
Principle: Independent verification of technical performance is critical in resolving payment disputes.
4. Larsen & Toubro v. Indian National Highways Authority (India, Domestic Arbitration, 2017)
Facts: Payment dispute over variation works requested by owner for bridge approach resurfacing.
Tribunal Findings: Contractor entitled to additional payment; variation properly documented.
Principle: Arbitration enforces compensation for properly approved variations.
5. Porr AG v. Austrian Federal Railways (Austria, ICC, 2018)
Facts: Asphalt resurfacing for highway near railway; non-payment claimed due to delays in traffic management approvals.
Tribunal Findings: Owner liable for delayed approval; payment awarded with interest.
Principle: Payment withholding unjustified if delay caused by owner or third-party approvals.
6. HeidelbergCement v. Romanian Road Authority (Romania, ICC, 2019)
Facts: Dispute over final payment for resurfacing 40 km highway; owner claimed minor surface defects.
Tribunal Findings: Minor defects deemed non-material; full payment awarded with interest.
Principle: Materiality of defect is critical; arbitration can prevent disproportionate withholding of payment.
⚖️ Tribunal Approach
Contract Review – Scope of resurfacing, measurement, and payment clauses.
Completion Assessment – Milestone verification, quality, and compaction compliance.
Defect Analysis – Determine materiality and remediation obligations.
Delay Assessment – Excusable vs. non-excusable delays; LD deductions.
Remedies – Payment, interest, cost recovery, partial deductions for defects.
Evidence Reliance – Engineer certifications, testing reports, site logs, and expert testimony.
📝 Practical Takeaways
Define payment milestones, testing requirements, and approval procedures clearly in contract.
Document daily progress, testing results, and communications for arbitration evidence.
Include variation order and force majeure clauses to handle unforeseen changes or delays.
Arbitration ensures technical disputes over payment are resolved efficiently, balancing defect claims and completed work.
Expert reports are essential for quantifying defects and establishing entitlement to payment.
This provides a comprehensive overview of arbitration for non-payment disputes in asphalt resurfacing, illustrated with six representative case laws, covering liability, remedies, and tribunal reasoning.
RELATED Blog
comments