I read with interest the article by Mr Justice Akenhead (3 September, page 47)

The work of the Technology and Construction Court, as he explained, is very impressive, but he neglected to mention the elephant in the room, namely the costs incurred by litigants.

One needs only to look at two cases arising from the construction of Wembley stadium to illustrate the point. In the case between Multiplex and Mott MacDonald, the cost to each side was in the region of 拢30m before the hearing commenced. After some harsh words from the judge the parties settled with a payment rumoured to be well below 拢20m including costs.

Multiplex and Cleveland Bridge crossed swords on the same project, resulting in the parties鈥� combined costs of 拢22m and a payment of less than 拢5m.

The fact that judges dragoon the parties into the hands of mediators and penalise them if they neglect to comply, hardly demonstrates self belief. One can only conclude that where disputes on construction projects involving complex issues relating to costs and time are concerned, courts of law are not fit for purpose. Courts should stick to resolving legal disputes and leave complex technical matters to technical experts.

Roger Knowles

Topics