Construction projects are uniquely vulnerable to disruption caused by unresolved disputes because interruptions in payment or performance during ongoing works can rapidly affect labour, procurement, subcontractor mobilisation, project sequencing, and ultimately project viability. Unlike many commercial disputes, construction conflicts frequently arise while contractual performance is still ongoing, meaning that delayed resolution may itself become a source of delay, disruption, and escalating cost.[1] Cash flow is therefore not merely a financial concern but often the commercial mechanism that keeps a project operational. This commercial reality explains the development of adjudication and the widespread adoption of “pay now, argue later”[2] regimes in jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore, where expedited interim decisions are used to preserve cash flow and minimise disruption while works continue.
The 2024 UNCITRAL Model Clauses on Specialised Express Dispute Resolution (SPEDR), adopted by the UNCITRAL Commission on 1 July 2024 with explanatory notes finalised later that year, seek to extend this logic into an internationally adaptable framework for cross-border commercial contracts. SPEDR introduces a model of rapid, interim-binding dispute resolution intended to provide commercially workable decisions without requiring parties immediately to commence full arbitration. Its most notable innovation is the combination of expedited adjudicative procedures with a narrowly confined “compliance arbitration” mechanism designed to secure swift enforcement where a party refuses to comply with an interim determination.[3]
For the construction industry, SPEDR may offer a meaningful middle ground between informal project administration and fully fledged arbitration. Its potential advantages include speed, lower procedural cost, preservation of cash flow, and reduced interference with ongoing works. At the same time, questions remain regarding enforcement across jurisdictions, the procedural pressures created by compressed timelines, and the possibility that parties may still proceed to full arbitration after an expensive interim process. Whether SPEDR develops into a widely adopted mechanism rather than a sophisticated contractual drafting option will depend on industry confidence in its ability to deliver effective interim justice in high-value construction disputes.
I. The SPEDR Framework
The UNCITRAL Commission adopted the SPEDR Model Clauses in July 2024, approved the explanatory notes in principle at the same session, and Working Group II finalised those notes at its eightieth session in late 2024. The package contains four model clauses: Highly Expedited Arbitration, Adjudication, Technical Advisers, and Confidentiality. UNCITRAL states that the first two are particularly suited to sectors such as technology and construction, where long-term commercial relationships require speed and expertise to minimise project delay and financial loss.
In the adjudication model, SPEDR is not designed to replace arbitration. Rather, it complements arbitration by allowing a rapid interim determination on a defined dispute, while preserving access to ordinary arbitration for a final determination. The adjudicator normally issues a determination within the bracketed period of 30 days from accepting appointment, extendable only in exceptional circumstances up to a total of 60 days. The determination is binding and must be complied with without delay. If a party does not comply, the other party may commence a specialised “compliance arbitration” under modified UNCITRAL Expedited Arbitration Rules, and that tribunal is confined to deciding compliance, not re-trying the merits.
This structure is significant. A simple contractual adjudication clause may create enforcement difficulties in cross-border disputes. SPEDR addresses this by converting compliance issues into a rapid arbitral process, potentially resulting in an award enforceable under standard award-enforcement procedures. This feature is a primary reason for construction practitioners to consider SPEDR.
II. How SPEDR Differs from Familiar Construction Mechanisms
SPEDR adjudication differs from arbitration in both method and purpose. Arbitration is ordinarily designed to produce a final, binding award after a fuller adversarial process, whereas adjudication is designed to produce a rapid, interim answer intended to keep the project moving. UNCITRAL’s own materials describe expedited arbitration as a streamlined route to final resolution, whereas adjudication is framed as a fast, interim, contractually binding determination that may later be revisited in full arbitration.
SPEDR also differs from FIDIC dispute-board practice. FIDIC’s 1999 Red Book included forms of Dispute Adjudication Agreement, while the 2017 Red Book introduced more explicit dispute-avoidance machinery, including the Dispute Avoidance/Adjudication Agreement and DAAB Procedural Rules. FIDIC’s model is therefore more project-based and continuous, especially in its modern form, whereas SPEDR is more ad hoc and dispute-specific. That makes SPEDR conceptually closer to statutory adjudication than to a standing DAAB.
SPEDR is also different from emergency arbitration. Emergency arbitrator procedures, such as the ICC’s, are focused on urgent interim or conservatory measures and lead to an emergency order, rather than a final merits award. By contrast, SPEDR adjudication is concerned with an interim merits determination, often the sort of payment or valuation issue that directly affects whether work continues on site.
III. Commercial Significance in Construction Projects
UNCITRAL’s explanatory materials expressly state that adjudication is especially appropriate where parties want quick, binding, and enforceable results in long-term contracts, enabling them to move forward without significant disruption. The official notes make a second point that is crucial to emphasise: UNCITRAL expects that, where adjudication is available, many parties will accept the interim determination and will not proceed to regular arbitration at all.
That expectation is commercially significant because unresolved disputes in live construction projects frequently create operational consequences long before final legal liability is determined. Delayed payments and unresolved valuation disputes may affect labour mobilisation, subcontractor participation, procurement sequencing, and financing arrangements even where the project ultimately continues, or one party later succeeds in arbitration.[4]
The practical consequences of such disputes can be seen in a range of recent construction projects. For instance, in Panther Real Estate Development LLC v Modern Executive Systems Contracting LLC,[5] a UAE construction dispute involved delay claims extending for approximately 325 days, most of which were attributed to the employer. Although the contractor ultimately failed because of contractual notice requirements, the dispute demonstrates how disagreements concerning extensions of time, payment entitlement, and project administration may become intertwined with prolonged disruption and significant delay consequences during project performance.
This example serves to illustrate a broader industry reality: unresolved disputes in construction projects frequently become operational obstacles in themselves, affecting labour retention, procurement schedules, subcontractor performance, and project sequencing long before final liability is conclusively determined. The practical value of adjudication, therefore, lies not merely in procedural speed but in limiting the disruptive effects that unresolved disputes themselves may impose on project delivery.
King’s College London’s 2024 international dispute boards survey found that voluntary compliance with binding dispute-board decisions was significant, though not universal, and that most respondents reported subsequent litigation or arbitration followed only 0-10 per cent of the time.[6] SPEDR adjudication is not the same as a dispute board, but the data support the broader proposition that a technically informed interim project decision often narrows, resolves, or de-escalates disputes rather than merely duplicating later proceedings.
The domestic experience with adjudication points in the same direction. In the UK, adjudication remains heavily used decades after its introduction. For example, King’s College London reported in November 2024 that adjudication referrals during the previous year had reached a record high of 2,264.[7] While this does not suggest that statutory adjudication is without flaws, it does demonstrate that users continue to see significant value in a rapid interim dispute-resolution process long after the enactment of the 1996 Act.
IV. Benefits, Risks and Future Viability
SPEDR offers tangible benefits for ongoing projects. It can maintain liquidity, reduce leverage arising from delayed payments, and provide short-term certainty without requiring parties to enter full arbitral proceedings. It may be particularly attractive for variation valuation disputes, interim payment disputes, certification disputes, and other commercially urgent entitlement issues.
The risks, however, remain significant. The procedure is intentionally expedited, creating pressure on due process and procedural fairness. UNCITRAL has therefore emphasised equality of treatment and a reasonable opportunity for each party to present its case, safeguards that also apply in compliance arbitration where enforcement may be refused if minimum procedural standards are not met.
There are also important drafting considerations. Unless the parties include sequencing provisions, adjudication and ordinary arbitration may proceed in parallel, creating duplication and inefficiency. Parties should therefore consider, at the drafting stage, the scope of adjudication, sequencing of proceedings, appointing authority, and whether adjudication should apply to all disputes or only specific categories such as monetary claims.
More broadly, SPEDR should be viewed not as a replacement for arbitration, but as an attempt to adapt the logic of adjudication, rapid interim dispute resolution aimed at preserving cash flow and project continuity, to the international construction context. Its practical success will depend largely on whether parties view compliance arbitration as a credible mechanism for obtaining swift and enforceable interim relief across jurisdictions. Ultimately, SPEDR reflects an emerging recognition that, in international construction projects, the commercial value of dispute resolution may depend as much on speed as on the correctness of the final legal outcome.
V. Practical Considerations for Parties
For claimants:
- Define the dispute narrowly and precisely. SPEDR is most likely to work effectively for focused payment, valuation, certification, or variation disputes rather than sprawling multi-issue claims.
- Prepare evidence early. The compressed timetable leaves little room for supplementary submissions or extensive document production.
- Consider the enforcement strategy from the outset. Claimants should identify where assets are located and whether a compliance award is likely to be enforceable in the relevant jurisdiction.
- Avoid overreaching claims. Excessively broad or technically complex referrals may increase procedural objections and reduce the credibility of the process.
- Use the interim nature strategically. Even where final arbitration remains possible, a favourable interim determination may create commercial pressure for settlement.
For respondents:
- React immediately. SPEDR timelines are intentionally short, so delay in appointing counsel, experts, or project personnel may be fatal.
- Preserve procedural objections early. Any concerns regarding jurisdiction, due process, scope of referral, or equality of treatment should be raised promptly during the adjudication itself.
- Assess whether compliance is commercially preferable. Immediate compliance may sometimes be cheaper and less disruptive than resisting enforcement through compliance arbitration.
- Watch for “ambush” adjudications. The speed of the procedure may incentivise tactical referrals designed to exploit informational asymmetry or incomplete project records.
- Coordinate adjudication and arbitration strategy. Parallel proceedings may create inconsistent submissions or evidentiary complications if not managed carefully.
[1] Albert Bates Jr. & R. Zachary Torres-Fowler, Arbitrating Construction Disputes in the US, Practical Law Arbitration, at 1 (Thomson Reuters Practical Law, Apr. 2025).
[2] Dulcie Jones, A Construction Introduction to Adjudication, Womble Bond Dickinson (Jan. 3, 2026), https://www.womblebonddickinson.com/uk/insights/articles-and-briefings/construction-introduction-adjudication.
[3] Arpan Gupta, UNCITRAL Publishes a New Model Clause on Adjudication, HFW (Dec. 18, 2024), https://www.hfw.com/insights/uncitral-publishes-a-new-model-clause-on-adjudication-dec-2024.
[4] Amila N.K.K. Gamage & Suresh Kumar, Study on Adjudication Challenges in Singapore’s Construction Industry: An In-Depth Analysis of Payment Disputes and Judicial Review, 21 World J. Advanced Rsch. & Revs. 2257, 2257 (2024), https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2024.21.3.0978; Reuben A. Okereke, The Effect of Delayed Payments and Retention on Contractors’ Cash Flow, 9 PM World J. 1 (Aug. 2020), https://pmworldlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/pmwj96-Aug2020-Okereke-effect-of-delayed-payments-and-retention.pdf
[5] Panther Real Estate Development LLC v Modern Executive Systems Contracting LLC [2022] DIFC CA 016 (12 May 2023).
[6] Renato Nazzini & Raquel Macedo Moreira, 2024 Dispute Boards International Survey: A Study on the Worldwide Use of Dispute Boards over the Past Six Years (Ctr. of Constr. L. & Disp. Resol., King’s Coll. London, 2024).
[7] Renato Nazzini & Aleksander Godhe, 2024 Construction Adjudication in the United Kingdom: Tracing Trends and Guiding Reform (Ctr. of Constr. L. & Disp. Resol., King’s Coll. London, 2024).
