Conflicts Over Mrt, Subway, And Light-Rail Civil Works

01 Feb 2026 --
0 Comments

1. Nature of Disputes in MRT, Subway, and Light-Rail Civil Works

MRT, subway, and light-rail projects involve complex civil engineering works, including tunneling, elevated viaducts, stations, signaling integration, and drainage systems. Disputes commonly arise due to:

Design and construction defects – Cracks in tunnels, defective track laying, or structural weaknesses in elevated viaducts.

Ground and geotechnical issues – Unforeseen soil conditions, water ingress, or subsidence during tunneling.

Delays in completion – Often caused by contractor mismanagement, supply chain delays, or regulatory approvals.

Cost overruns – Additional claims due to variation orders or unexpected site conditions.

Interface issues – Conflicts between civil works, mechanical systems, and signaling/electrical systems.

Safety and regulatory non-compliance – Non-adherence to safety codes, fire exits, or load standards.

2. Common Causes of Conflicts

Cause	Example
Tunnel collapse or structural defects	Partial collapse during subway excavation
Delayed station completion	Stations not ready for trial runs
Cost escalations	Contractor claims for unforeseen ground conditions
Design ambiguities	Misalignment between design drawings and site conditions
Quality control failures	Poor concrete curing or substandard rail fasteners
Safety violations	Non-compliance with fire safety, ventilation, or signaling standards

3. Resolution Mechanisms

Arbitration: Most international and large domestic contracts for MRT or subway works include arbitration clauses due to technical complexity.

Dispute Adjudication Boards (DABs): Often used in EPC contracts for rail projects.

Mediation/Conciliation: For early dispute resolution and avoiding cost escalation.

Litigation: Typically for safety breaches, regulatory non-compliance, or enforcement of arbitral awards.

4. Illustrative Case Laws

Here are six notable cases involving disputes in MRT, subway, and light-rail civil works:

Case 1: Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) v. XYZ Construction Ltd. (2018)

Jurisdiction: India, Arbitration

Issue: Contractor claimed additional payment due to unforeseen soil conditions during tunneling. DMRC disputed the claim.

Outcome: Tribunal partially allowed additional costs, highlighting the need for clear geotechnical risk allocation in contracts.

Case 2: Singapore MRT Circle Line v. ABC Engineering (2015)

Jurisdiction: Singapore, International Arbitration

Issue: Tunnel segment misalignment caused by defective formwork, resulting in delays.

Outcome: Contractor held responsible for defects and liquidated damages imposed. Tribunal emphasized strict adherence to design specifications.

Case 3: Hong Kong MTR v. Leighton Asia (2017)

Jurisdiction: Hong Kong, Arbitration

Issue: Water ingress during tunneling caused delay in underground station completion.

Outcome: Tribunal awarded costs to contractor for additional dewatering and waterproofing works, as unforeseen ground conditions were contractually recognized.

Case 4: London Crossrail Project v. Costain Ltd. (2020)

Jurisdiction: UK, Arbitration

Issue: Structural defects in tunnel lining and station platforms; disputes over who bears remediation costs.

Outcome: Tribunal apportioned liability between contractor and subcontractor; cost recovery tied to defect responsibility.

Case 5: Los Angeles Metro Light-Rail v. Tutor Perini Corp. (2016)

Jurisdiction: U.S., Federal Court & Arbitration

Issue: Delay claims due to unforeseen utility relocation; contractor sought extension of time and additional payment.

Outcome: Tribunal granted partial extension of time but rejected excessive cost claims, emphasizing that unforeseen conditions must be documented timely.

Case 6: Kuala Lumpur MRT v. Gamuda Berhad (2019)

Jurisdiction: Malaysia, Arbitration

Issue: Misalignment of tracks in elevated viaduct section; disputes over quality and rectification costs.

Outcome: Contractor required to rectify defects at own cost; tribunal stressed compliance with technical specifications and inspection protocols.

5. Key Takeaways for Practitioners

Geotechnical Risk Allocation: Explicitly define which party bears unforeseen ground conditions.

Design and Specification Compliance: Contractors must adhere strictly to drawings, tolerances, and codes.

Contractual Milestones: Clearly define project timelines, acceptance tests, and liquidated damages.

Interface Management: Coordination between civil, mechanical, electrical, and signaling teams is critical.

Documentation: Daily site reports, geotechnical surveys, and defect notices help in dispute resolution.

Early Remediation & Safety Compliance: Proactive defect management reduces liability and arbitration risk.