Testimonials on the C-BUILD by CEPANI Academy

Training Session Deep Dive for Mediators – C-Build by CEPANI

 The Mediation session started with a joint presentation by 3 experienced mediators, Helga Van Peer (independent mediator), Fanny Laune (Partner, Simont Braun) and Bart Plevoets (independent mediator).

 These enthusiastic trainers showcased their knowledge and experience in mediating complex construction cases and presented a strong business case for mediation as the ideal dispute resolution tool for the construction industry. Their final slide showing the average time needed to conduct a mediation (3-6 months) as opposed to the time needed for judicial proceedings (5-10 years) contained the ultimate promotion message for mediation. The trainers dived into the technique of co-mediation which addresses the typical complexities faced in a construction dispute (a mix of legal issues and technical issues; the involvement of a multitude of stakeholders) by ensuring a better division of tasks between the mediators (observing and coordinating), an increased sense of impartiality and reduced bias on the mediators' side as well as an enhanced creativity. The trainers presented specific tools to obtain a successful outcome like the use of timelines, encouraging participants to speak in the first-person singular and the use of a contribution log to identify the role of various actions and individuals in the emergence of the dispute. The trainers also addressed the specific challenges relating to multiparty mediation, the role of insurers and the impact of public sector actors’ involvement.

 Marco Schoups (Partner, Schoups) commented on three CEPANI novelties that are available to resolve construction disputes : (1) Med Arb where an unsuccessful mediation is followed by an arbitration, (2) Arb Med where arbitration is stopped or suspended to allow parties to go to mediation, and (3) Mediation Window, where parties may start a mediation in between two phases of the arbitration proceedings (e.g. after the CMC, after the phase of production of documents, last round of submissions, etc.). Med Arb and in particular the question whether the same mediator can act as arbitrator gave rise to lively debates in the room.

 Gert Truyens (Partner, Proove) walked us through planning & delays in construction. With lots of tips and examples from his own practice, Mr. Truyens explained the basics of scheduling and delay analysis. He described planning best practices, explained key contractual provisions on scheduling and referred to techniques to assess contractual entitlements.

 In summary, it often comes down to elaborating a valid and accepted baseline as a cornerstone for any meaningful delay analysis. Buffer and float drive entitlement are key to understanding who owns what and why it matters. Mr. Truyens stated that strong claims must rely on consistent, factual and well-documented evidence. Finally, forensic analyses should align with project reality and not just technical modelling.  In construction disputes on delays and planning, as in everything else, one cannot do without a healthy dose of common sense.

 C-Build by CEPANI 's training session offered - without any doubt - a high-quality dive into the specificities of construction mediation and the practical tools to successfully resolve the many issues that are typical for this industry.

Report on C-BUILD by CEPANI Academy training
Earlier this month, I had the privilege of attending the C-BUILD by CEPANI Academy training, which was held over two consecutive days. The first day, the “Mandatory Global Training” offered a broad and well-structured introduction to the legal and contractual framework of construction projects, while the second day’s “Deep Dive Arbitration” focused on procedural complexities, particularly in arbitration practice. As a new member of CEPANI with a strong interest in construction arbitration, it was an excellent opportunity to familiarize myself further with both the fundamental concepts and the practical challenges that arise in this field.

Here are my three main takeaways:

1.       The importance of clearly defined contractual structures in managing risk

The first day’s sessions, with presentations from Benoît Kohl (President, CEPANI), Françoise Lefèvre (Independent arbitrator), Marco Schoups (Partner, Schoups) and Tom Hens (Partner, Schuermans), showed that how construction contracts are structured affects risk allocation and potential disputes. This is true whether using a traditional Design-Bid-Build (DBB) model, a bouwteam arrangement, or international templates like FIDIC contracts. Professor Kohl’s detailed overview of legal structuring in construction projects underscored the importance of clearly defining obligations, liabilities, and contract typologies. Particular attention was given to the legal treatment of subcontracting and the implications of recent legislative reforms in Belgium. These considerations are highly relevant when drafting or reviewing contracts at the outset of a project.

2.       The resolution of concurrent delays requires both technical and legal precision

The presentation by Nicolas Vanderstappen (Partner, Vanderstappen Robert) clarified how concurrent delays are not only technical scheduling issues but also raise legal questions around causation and burden of proof. The discussion seamlessly integrated international standards (like the SCL Protocol) with the new provisions of Belgian civil law (Article 6.18 of the new Civil Code), which allow tribunals to adjust causation based on equity. I found it particularly useful to learn how Belgian courts and arbitral tribunals approach concurrent delays, especially regarding apportionment and the “time but no money” principle. This has a clear impact on how parties should prepare their claims and expert reports.

The practical dimension was further enriched by the session from Gert Truyens (Country Lead, Proove), highlighting the role of delay analysis, planning baselines, and the quality of scheduling data need in order to substantiate- or defend claims.

3.       Construction arbitration presents unique procedural and evidentiary challenges

The presentation by Guillaume Croisant (Counsel, Linklaters) on the specificities of construction arbitration highlighted several distinguishing features: large volumes of technical documentation, extensive involvement of party-appointed experts, and the need for case management techniques tailored to complex factual matrices. He also noted the frequent difficulty in separating legal from technical questions, which makes the arbitrator’s familiarity with construction practice all the more critical. For me, this confirmed the importance of a multidisciplinary approach in such proceedings, emphasizing the necessity for legal, technical, and managerial expertise to effectively navigate and resolve disputes in construction arbitration.

Overall, attending the C-BUILD Academy proved to be an invaluable experience, enhancing my understanding of the legal and procedural dynamics of construction disputes. It offered insightful context for future endeavours in this domain. I greatly valued the comprehensive content and the opportunity to interact with fellow peers actively engaged in the arbitration community.