A goodly assemblage of 30 or so arbitrators and others duly assembled at Croydon Magistrates Court to hear that doyen of arbitration John Sims give an interesting talk on the Construction Industry Model Arbitration Rules (CIMAR).

John started by explaining the background to the introduction of the Rules. There was a particular problem in relation to multi-party disputes. In an arbitration between, say, a main contractor and subcontractor there might be provision within the applicable rules for joinder of related disputes. The main contractor may wish to join the Employer. However if there are no joinder provisions in the arbitration agreement relating to the main contract then any joinder provision in the subcontract could well be ineffective. In these circumstances a separate arbitration would be commenced with a separate Arbitrator albeit the disputes as between employer contractor and subcontractor are inextricably linked.

This was a serious deficiency, not helped by the 1996 Act which ignored provisions relating joinder because of drafting difficulties.

Thus at a meeting of the Society of Construction Arbitrators the idea was floated, reputedly by John Uff, of a model set of arbitration rules which would be applicable to the construction industry in its entirety, including building, civil and chemical engineering contracts and appropriate also to the contracts of appointment of professional consultants. If the arbitration rules of each contract were similar, and incorporated appropriate joinder provisions, the problems experienced as to joinder of related disputes would no longer exist.

From this kernel of an idea, and with support of the main interested bodies including the Chartered Institute, a steering group was established and thence a small drafting subcommittee who eventually produced a first draft in February 1997. Following a consultation document in April 1997 the full rules were published in February 1998 and were endorsed by all the main professional bodies. The JCT body of contracts now incorporate the CIMAR rules albeit with some cosmetic additions concerning time limits. The draft standard form of appointment for professional consultants also incorporate the rules.

Thus as John explained, if the CIMAR rules are used universally there will be no problem with joinder even if three or four parties are involved in the dispute in future.

Most of us will be familiar with John Sims as a speaker with an outstanding knowledge of arbitration and an authority of delivery. Having given us the background he briefly considered each rule bringing out the relevant provisions and the important points to note. Emphasis was put on the flexibility of the rules and the fact that the rules laid down no timetables. Albeit that there are provisions for a short hearing (Rule 7), documents only (Rule 8) and full procedure (Rule 9) these are infinitely flexible and there is ample scope for the tribunal to make appropriate directions.

John dealt, of course competently, with a number of questions from the floor; and those who are concerned with dealing with and applying the CIMAR rules (as this commentator) I came away from the meeting with a far greater understanding than previously. For us it was so worth while.