Identification of Dispute Sources in the Construction Industry via Court Files

Öz

Contracting parties generally tend to resolve their disputes through the litigation process. The lengthy litigation process reduces the belief among the parties that the disputes are resolved peacefully, and this destabilizes the sustainable structure of the construction industry where disputes are very common. Determining the most common sources of disputes in construction lawsuits is very important in terms of taking necessary precautions beforehand. Additionally, increasing the competency levels of construction and judicial actors regarding construction processes is extremely important in terms of making the judicial process more efficient and faster. Therefore, this study aims to reveal the most frequent dispute sources in the construction industry, the competency levels of judicial actors including expert witnesses and the average duration of the construction-related litigation process for the superior courts. Hence, 346 construction-related lawsuits conducted between 2018 and 2021 were examined via content analysis to classify the common themes. Lawsuits were investigated via the official websites of Courts of Cassation and National Judicial Network Information System (UYAP). Next, the frequency analysis was conducted to detect the significance of each theme via SPSS software. It is highly believed that this study will enable the decision-makers to take necessary precautions before the dispute occurs as well as improve the dispute resolution process in the construction industry. Projects related to superstructure works constituted the majority of the disputes ending up with the judicial process. Additionally, the majority of the disputes detected from lawsuits resulted from “Debit and Credit” related issues. Moreover, the litigation process was also detected as a very lengthy process. Furthermore, it is detected that majority of the lawsuits were rejected by the Courts of Cassation due to inadequacies of the competency levels of the judicial actors.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dispute
• dispute resolution
• contract
• construction

Kaynakça

1. E. Taş and Ö. Fırtına, “The use of dispute review boards in construction projects: A comparison of Turkey, UK and US,” A|Z ITU J. Fac. Archit., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 187–204, 2015, [Online]. Available: https://www.journalagent.com/itujfa/pdfs/ITUJFA-74745-THEORY_ARTICLES-TAS.pdf.
2. V. Kaya, Ö. Yalçınkaya, and İ. Hüseyni, “Ekonomik Büyümede İnşaat Sektörünün Rolü:Türkiye Örneği (1987-2010),” Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilim. Derg., vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 148–167, 2013, [Online]. Available: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/30518.
3. Oxfordbusinessgroup, “Turkey’s Construction Sector to Maintain Its Significant Role in the Economy, with Several Large Projects under Way,” 2015. https://www.oxfordbusinessgroup.com/turkey-2015 (accessed Nov. 20, 2019).
4. M. Cevikbas, O. Okudan, and Z. Işık, “Identification and assessment of disruption claim management risks in construction projects: a life cycle-based approach,” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag., 2022, doi: 10.1108/ECAM-05-2022-0470.
5. D. Artan Ilter and G. Bakioglu, “Modeling the Relationship between Risk and Dispute in Subcontractor Contracts,” J. Leg. Aff. Disput. Resolut. Eng. Constr., vol. 10, no. 1, p. 04517022, 2018, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000246.
6. G. Başyiğit, “Kat Karşiliği İnşaat Sözleşmeleri ve Kat Karşiliği Standart İnşaat Sözleşme Maddeleri Önerisi,” Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi, 2012.
7. D. Arditi and T. Pulket, “Predicting the Outcome of Construction Litigation Using Boosted Decision Trees,” J. Comput. Civ. Eng., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 387–393, Oct. 2005, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801(2005)19:4(387).
8. D. Ilter, “Identification of the relations between dispute factors and dispute categories in construction projects,” Int. J. Law Built Environ., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 45–59, 2012, doi: 10.1108/17561451211211732.

9. H. Hendek, “Adil Yargılanma Hakkının Bir Unsuru Olarak Yargılamaların Makul Sürede Bitirilmesi,” Kocaeli Üniversitesi, Kocaeli, 2015.
10. M. Çevikbaş and A. Köksal, “Evaluation of Litigation Process in Turkish Construction Industry from Expert Witnesses’ Perspective,” Mühendislik Bilim. ve Tasarım Derg., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 213–218, Apr. 2018, doi: 10.21923/jesd.403713.
11. E. C. Apanoğlu and M. E. Öcal, “Türkiye’de inşaat sektöründe yargiya intikal eden süre ve özen borcu kaynaklı anlaşmazlıkların analizi,” Ç.Ü Fen Bilim. Enstitüsü, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 123–133, 2008.
12. M. Çevikbaş and A. Köksal, “Evaluation of Litigation Process in Turkish Construction Industry from the Perspective of Judicial Actors,” Tamap J. Eng., vol. 2019, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2019, doi: 10.29371/2019.3.76.
13. M. Çevikbaş and A. Köksal, “An Investigation of Litigation Process in Construction Industry in Turkey,” Tek. Dergi, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 8715–8730, 2018, doi: 10.18400/tekderg.389757.
14. Resmi Gazete, Expert Witness Regulation. 2017.
15. Ministry of Environment and Urban Planning, Yapi Denetimi Uygulama Yönetmeliğinde Değişiklik Yapilmasina Dair Yönetmelik. Turkey, 2018.
16. TBMM, Bölge İdare Mahkemeleri, İdare Mahkemeleri ve Vergi Mahkemelerinin Kuruluşu ve Görevleri Hakkinda Kanun. Turkey, 1982.
17. TBMM, Bölge İdare Mahkemeleri, İdare Mahkemeleri ve Vergi Mahkemelerinin Kuruluşu ve Görevleri Hakkında Kanun ile İdarî Yargılama Usulü Kanununda Değişiklik Yapılmasına Dair Kanun. 2000.
18. TBMM, Administrative Procedure Law. Türkiye: Resmi Gazete, 1982.
19. M. Ocak, “İdari Yargıda Duruşmanın Adil Yargılanma Hakkı Açısından İncelenmesi,” TBB Derg., vol. 145, pp. 349–367, 2019, Accessed: May 20, 2020. [Online]. Available: http://tbbdergisi.barobirlik.org.tr/m2019-145-1886.
20. A. Ayhan, “İdari Yargılama Hukukunda İvedi Yargılama Usulü,” Dicle Üniversitesi, 2019.
21. TBMM, Adlî Yargı İlk Derece Mahkemeleri̇ İle Bölge Adli̇ye Mahkemeleri̇ni̇n Kuruluş, Görev ve Yetki̇leri̇ Hakkında Kanun, no. 1. Türkiye: Resmi Gazete, 2004.
22. TBMM, Code of Civil Procedure. Türkiye: Resmi Gazete, 2011, pp. 1–51.
23. TBMM, Regulation on Mediation in Civil Disputes. Türkiye, 2018.
24. TBMM, Labor Courts Law. Türkiye, 2017.
25. TBMM, Cadastral Law. Türkiye, 1987.
26. TBMM, Law on Consumer Protection. Türkiye, 2013.
27. TBMM, 5846 Sayılı Fikir ve Sanat Eserleri Kanununun Bazı Maddelerinin Değiştirilmesine İlişkin Kanun. Türkiye, 1995.
28. TBMM, Labor Law. Turkey, 2003.
29. A.-V. Jaeger and G.-S. Hok, FIDIC-A Guide for Practitioners, vol. 3. Springer London, 2015.
30. A. Garrett, “Latest legal publications,” Mills & Reeve, 2017. https://www.mills-reeve.com/insights/publications/nec4-what-s-new-in-the-resolution-of-disputes (accessed Dec. 03, 2022).
31. AIA, “Understanding Different Methods of Dispute Resolution,” AIA, 2021. https://www.aia.org/articles/6456563-understanding-different-methods-of-dispute (accessed Dec. 03, 2022).
32. HM Courts & Tribunals Service, “Technology and Construction Court,” 2022. https://www.gov.uk/courts-tribunals/technology-and-construction-court (accessed Dec. 02, 2022).
33. Adalet Bakanlığı, “Bölge Adliye Mahkemeleri ve Bölge İdare Mahkemelerinin Tüm Yurtta Göreve Başlayacakları Tarihe İlişkin Karar,” 2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2015/11/20151107.htm.
34. Hakimler ve Savcılar Kurulu, “Adli ve İdari Yargı Listesi,” 2016. https://www.hsk.gov.tr/Adli-Idari-Yargi-Listesi.aspx (accessed Dec. 11, 2019).
35. TBMM, Courts of Cassation Law, no. 1. Türkiye: Resmi Gazete, 1983, pp. 5579–5608.
36. TBMM, Law on the Amendment of the Law on the Council of State and Some Laws. Türkiye: Resmi Gazete, 2016.
37. TBMM, Law on Judges and Prosecutors. Türkiye, 1983.
38. TBMM, Law Amending the Law on Judges and Prosecutors and Some Laws and Decrees. Türkiye, 2014.
39. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Karranamesi, Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Hakkında Cumhurbaşkanlığı Kararnamesi. 2019.
40. TBMM, Attorneyship Law. Türkiye, 1969.
41. TBMM, Mediation Law in Civil Disputes. Türkiye: Resmi Gazete, 2012, pp. 1–11.
42. N. Ömeroğlu, “Af Yasası(1. ve 2. Yargı Paketinde Ne Gibi Yasal Düzenlemeler Var),” Hukiki Haber, 2019. https://www.hukukihaber.net/af-yasasi-1-ve-2-yargi-paketinde-ne-gibi-yasal-duzenlemeler-var-makale,7115.html?fbclid=IwAR1uF8X9uCEc3mcnpqRwGJyp2AKx-It8CfyUi1tjktKAyriFxx-JSlOIAmk (accessed Nov. 05, 2019).
43. TBMM, Expert Witness Law. Türkiye, 2016.
44. Ç. Çamcı, “Kamu Inşaatlarında Ortaya Çıkan Uyuşmazlıklar: Örnek Kararlar Işığında Uyuşmazlık Nedenlerinin İncelenmesi,” Anadolu Üniversitesi, 2008.
45. O. Durrah, “Structural Equation Model of Construction Contract Dispute Potential,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 35, no. March, pp. 359–372, 2018.
46. R. M. Thompson, M. C. Vorster, and J. P. Groton, “Innovations to Manage Disputes: DRB and NEC,” J. Manag. Eng., vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 51–59, 2000, doi: 10.1061/(asce)0742-597x(2000)16:5(51).
47. TBMM, Constitution of the Republic of Turkey, no. 1. Türkiye: Resmi Gazete, 1982.
48. “Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi,” 1950. [Online]. Available: https://www.danistay.gov.tr/upload/avrupainsanhaklarisozlesmesi.pdf.
49. A. H. Abd Jamil and M. S. Fathi, “Enhancing BIM-Based Information Interoperability: Dispute Resolution from Legal and Contractual Perspectives,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 146, no. 7, pp. 1–12, 2020, doi: 10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001868.
50. C. A. Mikhail and E. Serag, “Quantifying the Delay from Lost Productivity,” J. Leg. Aff. Disput. Resolut. Eng. Constr., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 05019005-1–10, 2019, doi: 10.1061/(asce)la.1943-4170.0000322.
51. I. Ndekugri, N. Braimah, and R. Gameson, “Delay Analysis within Construction Contracting Organizations,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 134, no. 9, pp. 692–700, 2008, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2008)134:9(692).
52. H. Derakhshanfar, J. J. Ochoa, K. Kirytopoulos, W. Mayer, and C. Langston, “A cartography of delay risks in the Australian construction industry: impact, correlations and timing,” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag., vol. 1992, 2020, doi: 10.1108/ECAM-04-2020-0230.
53. M. Çevikbaş, O. Okudan, and Z. Işık, “New Delay-Analysis Method Using Modified Schedule and Modified Updated Schedule for Construction Projects,” J. Constr. Eng. Manag., vol. 148, no. 11, pp. 1–18, 2022, doi: 10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0002394.
54. M. Guévremont and A. Hammad, “Review and Survey of 4D Simulation Applications in Forensic Investigation of Delay Claims in Construction Projects,” J. Leg. Aff. Disput. Resolut. Eng. Constr., vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 04520017-1–9, 2020, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000391.
55. Z. G. Al-Kofahi, A. Mahdavian, and A. Oloufa, “System dynamics modeling approach to quantify change orders impact on labor productivity 1: principles and model development comparative study,” Int. J. Constr. Manag., vol. 22, no. 7, pp. 1355–1366, 2020, doi: 10.1080/15623599.2020.1711494.