The Structural Engineer > Archive > Volume 30 (1952) > Issues > Issue 5 > The Structural Engineer as Arbitrator, Expert Witness and Advocate Discussion on Mr. G. B. R. Pimm&#
Name of File 2138-30-05.pdf cached at 14/12/2017 04:27:38 - with 5 pages. pdfPath: E:\k9.istructe.org\CMS\webtest\files\98\985e4bd1-a854-4a07-abd0-302906b5a6b8.pdf. thumbPath: E:\k9.istructe.org\CMS\webtest\files\pdfthumbs\985e4bd1-a854-4a07-abd0-302906b5a6b8_1.png. objDoc: 1 - True. objPreview.Log: . strFileName: 985e4bd1-a854-4a07-abd0-302906b5a6b8_1.png

Members/subscribers must be logged in to view this article

The Structural Engineer as Arbitrator, Expert Witness and Advocate Discussion on Mr. G. B. R. Pimm’s Paper

In presenting the paper, the author said that in arbitrations relating to building contracts the issues might be wholly legal, wholly technical, or partly legal and partly technical. With regard to the first, he was doubtful whether the dispute ought to be referred to arbitration at all. It could probably be settled much better in the Courts. If it were referred to arbitration the arbitrator should be a lawyer. It was equally certain that when the matters in dispute were wholly technical, the arbitrator should be a technical man, and it was of the utmost importance that he should be appointed as soon as possible after the dispute arose. This was specially important when any kind of structural failure or defect was involved, for the arbitrator could then form his own opinion, from actual inspection, and examination of the facts, and would often be able to reach his decision without further evidence.