{"id":399751,"date":"2026-10-26T16:04:41","date_gmt":"2026-10-26T10:34:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=399751"},"modified":"2026-10-26T16:30:17","modified_gmt":"2026-10-26T11:00:17","slug":"aiac-asia-adr-week-2026-debate-on-quantum-determination-in-construction-disputes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/26\/aiac-asia-adr-week-2026-debate-on-quantum-determination-in-construction-disputes\/","title":{"rendered":"Stepping up or setting aside? Experts debate role of experts in determining quantum in construction disputes at AIAC Asia ADR Week 2026"},"content":{"rendered":"<div style=\"text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;\">\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC) is hosting the eighth edition of its flagship Asia ADR Week from 12th to 16th October 2026 in Kuala Lumpur.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Hosted under the theme <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">&#8220;Kainos: Where Vision Transforms Future&#8221;<\/span>, the Asia ADR Week 2026 brings together practitioners, arbitrators, mediators, academics, businesses and stakeholders from Malaysia, Asia and beyond to exchange perspectives on the developments shaping the future of dispute resolution.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/16_AIAC-Asia-ADR-Week-2026-Day-4-Debate_1.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"833\" height=\"340\" \/><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%; text-align: center; font-style: italic;\">[In frame: Mr. Daniel Chua, Ms. Lynnda Lim, Mr. Austen Pereira, Dato&#8217; Mary Lim Thiam Suan, Mr. Dmitry Kaysin, Sr. John Wong and Mr. Christopher Arun Francis]<\/p>\n<p>The conference included a debate titled <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">&#8220;Leave It to the Experts? Experts versus Arbitrators on Construction Quantum&#8221;<\/span> wherein:<\/p>\n<ul style=\"list-style-type: disc;\">\n<li>\n<p>House A believes that arbitrators should step aside on determining quantum in construction disputes.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">House B believes that arbitrators should retain responsibility for evaluating expert evidence and reaching their own conclusions on the quantum.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">A debate on whether arbitrators should step aside from determining quantum in construction disputes examined the appropriate division of responsibilities between arbitral tribunals and technical experts, the importance of party autonomy, the enforceability of arbitral awards, and the need to preserve procedural fairness.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The debate was moderated by <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Dato&#8217; Mary Lim Thiam Suan<\/span>, President, AIAC Court of Arbitration, who guided the speakers through their opening arguments, rebuttals, and final submissions. The discussion centered on a fundamental question: whether referring the technical assessment of construction claims to a quantum expert would improve the accuracy and efficiency of arbitration or risk transferring an essential adjudicatory function away from the tribunal appointed by the parties.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%; text-align: center;\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/16_AIAC-Asia-ADR-Week-2026-Day-4-Debate_2.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"400\" height=\"400\" \/><\/p>\n<p>The debate consisted of the following fiery debaters:<\/p>\n<ul style=\"list-style-type: disc;\">\n<li>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">House A- Arbitrators Assistance:<\/span> <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Mr. Austen Pereira<\/span>, Partner, RDS Partnership; <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Ms. Lynnda Lim<\/span>, Managing Director, REX C Expert and Dispute Services Sdn Bhd; and <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Mr. Daniel Chua<\/span>, Senior Consultant, HKA<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">House B- Natural Justice: Mr. Christopher Arun Francis<\/span>, Partner, Ariff Rozhan &amp; Co.; <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Mr. Dmitry Kaysin<\/span>, Partner, Asari Legal; and <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Sr. John Wong<\/span>, Director (Quantum &amp; Delay), Charlton Martin Consultants Sdn Bhd<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">After explaining the rules and structure of the debate, Dato&#8217; Suan handed over the mic to <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Mr. Daniel Chua<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center; font-weight: bold;\">Distinguishing legal entitlement from technical quantification: Mr. Daniel Chua<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Opening the debate for House A, Mr. Chua highlighted the complexity of construction arbitration, where disputes frequently involve multiple experts, including quantity surveyors, engineers, and delay analysts. He explained that quantity surveyors assess quantities and trace costs; engineers analyse technical constructability; and delay experts model the time-related aspects of a project. Following months of technical work, arbitrators are required to examine extensive documentary records, including drawings, minutes of meetings, method statements, and other project documents, before determining liability.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%; text-align: center;\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/16_AIAC-Asia-ADR-Week-2026-Day-4-Debate_3.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"400\" height=\"400\" \/><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Mr. Chua argued that while determining liability is predominantly a legal exercise within the arbitrator&#8217;s competence, the subsequent calculation of the financial consequences of that liability might require specialised technical expertise. Drawing an analogy with a dispute concerning the appropriate grade of concrete for a building, he questioned whether the issue should be decided by a medical doctor or by a civil and structural expert. He submitted that the same principle should apply to quantum: the person deciding the legal entitlement need not necessarily be the person best equipped to perform the technical calculations.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 36pt; margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">&#8220;So, when we say step aside, we don&#8217;t mean leave the room. We mean to leave the calculator to the person who understands every cell in the spreadsheet.&#8221;<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">He clarified that asking arbitrators to &#8220;step aside&#8221; did not mean that they should leave the proceedings or surrender their decision-making authority. Rather, it meant allowing the person who understands the technical calculations to undertake them. Under his proposed approach, the arbitrator would determine the legal and factual premises, decide entitlement, resolve disputed facts, ensure procedural fairness, determine the appropriate relief, and issue the award.<\/p>\n<p>In this regard, Mr. Chua advanced three principal arguments in support of the proposition.<\/p>\n<ol style=\"list-style-type: decimal;\">\n<li>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Different questions require different decision-makers:<\/span> He distinguished between entitlement, which concerns what the contract or law permits, and quantum, which concerns the financial consequences of applying that determination to the available records. Although the two questions interact, he maintained that they are not identical. Assessments involving prolongation, productivity, variations, duplication, and cost reconciliation require technical methodologies that differ from project to project. Using prolongation analysis as an example, he questioned whether an assessment should rely on preliminaries or the project ledger, and which resources should be included or excluded. These matters, he argued, require a technical understanding that an arbitrator might not possess. He therefore submitted that arbitrators should concentrate on determining legal liability while allowing quantum experts to calculate the corresponding costs.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Reduction of technical and computational errors:<\/span> Mr. Chua contended that arbitrators who must piece together extensive technical information from the record risk arriving at a legally correct conclusion but an arithmetically incorrect result. In construction arbitration, the assessment may involve several claims and counterclaims, multiple heads of claim, duplicated resources, alternative calculations, and numerous arithmetic checks. He argued that quantum experts, because of their familiarity with technical terminology and calculation methodologies, are better placed to identify inaccuracies in formulas, assumptions, and the assessments prepared by the parties&#8217; experts. Since arbitration is often commercially driven, an error in calculating the recoverable amount could undermine the purpose of the proceedings. Parties, he opined, seek not merely a determination that they are right but recovery of the amount to which they believe they are entitled.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Arbitrators get to concentrate on the proceedings and preserve fairness:<\/span> Addressing concerns about natural justice, Mr. Chua maintained that the arbitrator would remain present and supervise the entire process. The quantum expert would be confined to the technical assessment, while legal questions would remain with the arbitrator. For instance, if a disputed invoice appeared at a late stage, the arbitrator could determine the issue before returning the technical assessment to the expert.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Mr. Chua concluded that the objective was not to replace judicial or arbitral judgment with technical expertise, but to ensure that judgment was informed by usable expertise. He maintained that responsibility did not require arbitrators personally to perform every technical task. Instead, a responsible arbitrator should identify the relevant questions, establish an appropriate process, test the answers, and retain control over the award.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">He characterised the proposal as a division of functions: <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">&#8220;Arbitrators&#8217; assistance proposal is modest. Let the arbitrators arbitrate, let the experts quantify, and let each be accountable for the party they are qualified to perform. That is not abdication, that is not impermissible delegation, that is competent decision making.&#8221;<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center; font-weight: bold;\">Arbitrators must retain responsibility for adjudication: Mr. Dmitry Kaysin<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Responding on behalf of House B, Mr. Kaysin opposed the proposition and argued that the individuals appointed to decide a dispute must remain responsible for the decision. He submitted that arbitrators must evaluate expert evidence and reach their own conclusions on quantum.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%; text-align: center;\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/16_AIAC-Asia-ADR-Week-2026-Day-4-Debate_4.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"400\" height=\"400\" \/><\/p>\n<p>Mr. Kaysin organised his case around three arguments:<\/p>\n<ol style=\"list-style-type: decimal;\">\n<li>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Legitimacy of the arbitral process depends on the tribunal making the decision:<\/span> Mr. Kaysin argued that parties agree to arbitration because they trust particular individuals to examine their submissions, assess the evidence, and make a decision. If the decisive figure in an award were effectively determined by someone whom the parties had not selected, the arrangement would undermine the parties&#8217; arbitral bargain. He accepted that experts could assist the tribunal but insisted that the arbitrators must make the ultimate decision. In his submission, an award whose decisive figure was determined by an external expert could invite a challenge on the ground that the tribunal had exceeded its mandate or had not acted in accordance with the parties&#8217; agreement.<\/p>\n<p>In this context, he referred to Article 5 of the New York Convention and its provisions concerning the tribunal&#8217;s mandate and composition. He also referred to <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v. The Russian Federation<\/span><a id=\"fnref1\" href=\"#fn1\" title=\"1. PCA Case No. 2005-04\/AA227\"><sup>1<\/sup><\/a>, describing the award as approximately 50 billion US dollars and noting that Russia had challenged the award, including on the basis that the tribunal&#8217;s assistant had effectively become a fourth arbitrator. Although the award survived, he argued that the prolonged litigation demonstrated the importance of ensuring that the appointed arbitrators themselves exercise their decision-making authority.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Inseparability of quantum from the legal and factual findings:<\/span> Mr. Kaysin contended that quantification is not simply a mathematical exercise. The amount recoverable depends on a chain of findings concerning liability, contractual entitlement, causation, overlapping claims, and recoverability. The tribunal that determines these matters must also determine their financial consequences.<\/p>\n<p>To substantiate the point, he referred to <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Consolidated Contractors International Co. S.A.L and Orascom Construction Industries Co. S.A.E v. Golden Pyramids Plaza Co. S.A.E (I)<a id=\"fnref2\" href=\"#fn2\" title=\"2. CRCICA Case No. 467\/2006\"><sup>2<\/sup><\/a><\/span>,wherein<span style=\"font-style: italic;\"><\/span> the tribunal assessed a delay and disruption claim by identifying which expert assessment corresponded with its findings on prolongation costs, applying the contractual currency split, deducting settled variations, excluding unsuccessful claims, and determining the recoverable amount. He argued that this involved adjudication rather than arithmetic alone.<\/p>\n<p>He also referred to <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">STFA-SGTM Nador S.A. v. Keller Fondations Sp&eacute;ciales S.A<\/span>.<a id=\"fnref3\" href=\"#fn3\" title=\"3. ICC Case No. 26851\/AZO\/SP\/ETT\"><sup>3<\/sup><\/a>, wherein the tribunal had exercised its discretion to assess the strength and relevance of expert reports and rejected a delay-analysis methodology because it was unsuitable for determining causation in circumstances involving other delay factors. He remarked that this illustrated that the tribunal must decide not merely how a figure is calculated but whether the underlying methodology answers the relevant legal and factual questions.<\/p>\n<p>He further referred to provisions of the Construction Contract 2nd Ed (2017 Red Book), which exclude indirect and consequential loss and capping liability, subject to exceptions concerning fraud or willful conduct. He also referred to Article 401 of the Russian Civil Code, 1994, in discussing restrictions on excluding liability for intentional breach. Whether a breach was deliberate, whether a loss was indirect, and whether a contractual cap applied were, he argued, questions of fact and law that could not be resolved by technical experts.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Technical knowledge gaps should be addressed through tribunal composition:<\/span> Mr. Kaysin acknowledged that arbitrators might not always possess deep expertise in the construction quantum. However, he argued that this was a matter of selecting an appropriately constituted tribunal, not a justification for outsourcing adjudication. Where a dispute was likely to turn heavily on quantum, the parties could select arbitrators with relevant industry experience or expressly provide for such qualifications in their arbitration agreement. A non-lawyer, engineer, or quantity surveyor could also sit alongside a lawyer who chaired the tribunal.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Referring to <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Process and Industrial Developments Ltd. v. The Ministry of Petroleum Resources of the Federal Republic of Nigeria<\/span>, he argued that the appropriate lesson was to ensure that the tribunal understood the relevant commercial and industry realities. Transferring calculations to an external expert would not cure an underlying problem in the tribunal&#8217;s judgment.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Thus, Mr. Kaysin concluded that arbitrators were appointed to decide and experts to assist. If the expert&#8217;s figure became the operative decision, the distinction between assistance and adjudication would collapse, potentially replacing rather than improving the arbitral process.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Need for technical assistance for accurate and enforceable awards: Ms. Lynnda Lim<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">In the rebuttal on behalf of House A, Ms. Lynnda Lim challenged the assumption that arbitrators could reasonably be expected to possess both legal and technical qualifications across the range of construction disputes. She asked the audience how many arbitrators present were legally and technically qualified, drawing attention to the limited number of individuals who raised their hands.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%; text-align: center;\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/16_AIAC-Asia-ADR-Week-2026-Day-4-Debate_5.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"400\" height=\"400\" \/><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Ms. Lim argued that the availability of arbitrators with both forms of expertise could not be assumed, particularly when multiple cases were being heard simultaneously. She highlighted the demands of disputes involving termination, work completed, damages, loss of profits, rectification costs, and delay claims. If an arbitrator were required to determine the legal issues and independently assess all the technical claims within a prescribed period, the workload could become excessive. She referred to the possibility of an award being required within three months, or 90 days, after the closing submissions. In such circumstances, she questioned whether an arbitrator could reasonably be expected to examine extensive documentary bundles, resolve the legal issues, and independently undertake complex quantum and delay assessments.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Ms. Lim submitted that legal and procedural systems already recognise the need for decision-makers to receive specialised assistance. Drawing an analogy with construction contract administration, she observed that contract administrators are supported by quantity surveyors, engineers, fa&ccedil;ade consultants, and other technical consultants. Quantity surveyors assist with costs, engineers with extensions of time, and specialist consultants with particular technical issues. The contract administrator nevertheless retains the ultimate responsibility for issuing instructions and certifications.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">She argued that the same principle should apply to arbitration: the arbitrator need not perform every task personally, provided that the appropriate assistance is available, and the arbitrator retains control over the decision.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Ms. Lim also raised the difficulty of evaluating claims involving loss of revenue or complex financial records without the relevant accounting expertise. She emphasised that arbitrators were human and could not be expected to know everything. Technical assistance was therefore necessary, particularly when the parties&#8217; own experts failed to assist the tribunal effectively.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">She referred to both experts in a dispute not being helpful to the tribunal. In such circumstances, she argued, the tribunal should have options available, including seeking assistance from a third expert or bifurcating the proceedings. Bifurcation would permit the tribunal to determine liability first and then direct the quantum expert to undertake a more focused assessment based on the liability findings.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Ms. Lim concluded that expert assistance was essential to producing an enforceable decision within the tribunal&#8217;s jurisdiction. Her position was not that arbitrators should abandon their responsibilities, but that they should use technical assistance to discharge those responsibilities effectively.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center; font-weight: bold;\">Arbitrators must step up, not step aside: Sr. John Wong<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%; text-align: center;\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/16_AIAC-Asia-ADR-Week-2026-Day-4-Debate_6.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"400\" height=\"400\" \/><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Speaking for House B, Sr. John Wong acknowledged that construction arbitration had become increasingly complex but disagreed that this justified leaving quantum determination solely to experts. He questioned where the proposed division of responsibilities would end if every technical component of a construction dispute required a separate specialist. He argued that such an approach risked reducing the arbitrator&#8217;s role to announcing a result determined by others. Experts should be used, he submitted, but the dispute should not be surrendered to them.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">He also challenged Mr. Chua&#8217;s argument that an arbitrator might be legally correct but mathematically wrong, stating that an expert might be mathematically correct but legally wrong. The central question was therefore how the tribunal should distinguish between a technically accurate calculation and an amount that was legally recoverable. Mr. Wong argued that an arbitrator did not need to possess complete technical knowledge at the outset. Instead, the arbitrator needed to take ownership of the issues, learn enough to understand the calculations, and make a reasoned decision.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Responding to Ms. Lim&#8217;s argument concerning the availability of assistance, he agreed that experts could assist arbitrators but emphasised that assistance could not become a substitute for independent judgment. Arbitrators should question the experts about their assumptions, the supporting evidence, the methodology used, and the alternative calculations available if an assumption proved incorrect. In his view, such questions were not evidence of weakness; rather, they demonstrated that the arbitrator was fulfilling the role entrusted to them.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">He questioned why parties should trust an arbitrator who makes the decision on the dispute without understanding the technical reasoning behind the quantum.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Thus, he concluded that an arbitrator must not step aside from the decision-making process but should instead step up to understand the evidence and calculations sufficiently to reach a reasoned conclusion.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center; font-weight: bold;\">Quantum experts assist the tribunal without replacing it: Mr. Austen Pereira<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">In the next round, Mr. Austen Pereira responded to questions challenging House A&#8217;s proposition. He argued that the opposing house had misunderstood the distinction between holding a degree in a particular discipline and possessing the practical experience required to undertake specialised work.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%; text-align: center;\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/16_AIAC-Asia-ADR-Week-2026-Day-4-Debate_7.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"400\" height=\"400\" \/><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">He questioned whether a law degree automatically equipped someone to act as an accountant, or whether a technical qualification necessarily made its holder competent to practise law. He emphasised the importance of practice, arguing that a qualification alone did not establish the relevant professional competence.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Mr. Pereira clarified that House A had never proposed that arbitrators should cease determining quantum altogether. Instead, the proposition was that the arbitrator should obtain assistance from a quantum expert to arrive at the appropriate figure. The arbitrator would retain the ability to disagree with the proposed number or place it before the parties for further testing.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Responding to the proposed middle-ground mechanism, he accepted that tribunals already possessed options such as bifurcation, appointment of their own experts, and directions requiring experts to calculate quantum. However, he argued that these mechanisms supported House A&#8217;s position because they recognised the utility of specialised assistance after the tribunal had determined liability and causation.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">He also referred to the difficulty of severing an arbitral award in Malaysia, arguing that an error in one part of an award could affect the award as a whole. In his submission, this reinforced the need to reduce the risk of technical mistakes.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Regarding the right to be heard, Mr. Pereira rejected the suggestion that House A intended to give the expert the power to determine quantum. He reiterated that the expert would assist with the calculation, after which the figure would return to the arbitrator. The arbitrator could test the number, disagree with it, and exercise the relevant powers.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Thus, he concluded that House A&#8217;s proposal was a carefully limited form of assistance rather than a transfer of adjudicatory authority.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center; font-weight: bold;\">Parties chose the tribunal, not an additional decision-maker: Mr. Christopher Arun Francis<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Responding for House B, Mr. Francis argued that the debate ultimately turned on one question: who did the parties agree would decide their dispute when they entered into an arbitration agreement? He submitted that the answer was the arbitral tribunal, not the claimant&#8217;s expert, the respondent&#8217;s expert, or a spreadsheet. In his view, the parties&#8217; choice of arbitrators had to remain central to the decision-making process.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%; text-align: center;\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/16_AIAC-Asia-ADR-Week-2026-Day-4-Debate_8.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"400\" height=\"400\" \/><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Mr. Francis addressed the suggestion that an independent expert could determine technical valuation more efficiently and cost-effectively than party-appointed experts. He disagreed, arguing that introducing another expert would add a further opinion to an already complex process rather than necessarily resolve the disagreement.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">He explained that each party&#8217;s expert would provide an opinion based on assumptions originating from that party. The arbitrator&#8217;s responsibility was to assess the competing opinions and draw the necessary conclusions. Introducing an independent expert, he argued, would add another layer to the proceedings and could create further complications. Thus, he argued that the arbitrator was best placed to evaluate the competing expert evidence and reach a conclusion.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Regarding the risk of an arbitrator rejecting expert evidence and undertaking an independent assessment, Mr. Francis accepted that a tribunal could exceed its proper role if it rejected both parties&#8217; expert opinions without explaining the reasons for doing so. However, he argued that the problem could be addressed by requiring the arbitrator to assess the evidence and provide reasoned conclusions.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">He referred to a Malaysian Court of Appeal decision identified in the transcript as <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Kebangbang<\/span>. As he described it, the court found fault with a tribunal&#8217;s departure from the claimant&#8217;s expert&#8217;s quantum evaluation and its award of an amount exceeding the figure proposed by that expert. He relied on this example to emphasise that arbitral decision-making was subject to checks and balances and potential curial intervention.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Thus, he concluded that the authority to adjudicate must remain with the arbitrator. An expert&#8217;s role was to provide assistance to the tribunal, not to replace the tribunal&#8217;s decision-making function.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Final Rebuttals<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">A structured division of responsibility: Mr. Austen Pereira<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">In House A&#8217;s final rebuttal, Mr. Pereira returned to the proposition that arbitrators should step aside only for the purpose of obtaining technical assistance. He reiterated that the arbitrator should decide liability, causation, and breach before framing the quantum questions for the expert.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">He rejected the interpretation that House A proposed two separate awards, one issued by the arbitrator and another by the expert. Instead, he maintained that the quantum expert would assist with the calculation, after which the arbitrator would resume responsibility for the decision.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Mr. Pereira argued that the process should not require arbitrators to approach every aspect of arbitration in the same manner, regardless of the nature of the dispute. He advocated a more precise approach in which technical calculations were supported by data and specialist knowledge while the parties were given an opportunity to be heard.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">He again emphasised the importance of practical experience, arguing that the relevant question was whether the person undertaking a task had the necessary experience in the field. He concluded that an arbitrator could remain the sole decision-maker while relying on an expert to assist with the technical assessment.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Expertise gaps do not justify transferring adjudicatory authority: Mr. Dmitry Kaysin<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">In House B&#8217;s final rebuttal, Mr. Kaysin argued that House A&#8217;s clarification effectively accepted the central proposition advanced by House B: arbitrators are appointed to decide, while experts are appointed to assist.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">He reiterated that not every arbitration involved construction disputes or required the engagement of a quantum expert. Where specialised knowledge was necessary, the tribunal could be constituted with members who possessed technical expertise, including non-lawyers sitting alongside a lawyer who chaired the tribunal.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Mr. Kaysin maintained that acknowledging a knowledge gap did not mean that the proposed solution, transferring the technical assessment to an external expert, was justified. In his view, the appropriate response was to ensure that the tribunal possessed sufficient knowledge and experience to evaluate the evidence and reach a reasoned conclusion.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">He also argued that the arbitrator needed to understand the calculations sufficiently to decide the dispute, while experts could continue to provide the technical assistance required. The ultimate decision, he submitted, should remain with the tribunal appointed by the parties.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Thus, he concluded that the parties&#8217; choice of decision-maker should be respected and that the tribunal&#8217;s responsibility should not be displaced merely because a dispute involved complex calculations.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Conclusion<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Following the final submissions, Dato&#8217; Mary Lim Thiam Suan summarised the competing propositions. House A had argued that arbitrators should step aside when determining quantum in construction disputes, in the sense of allowing experts to undertake the technical calculations. House B maintained that the responsibility for determining quantum must remain with the arbitrators.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The audience was then invited to indicate which house they supported. Following the vote, House B, the &#8220;Natural Justices&#8221;, was declared the winner. The moderator congratulated both houses and brought the debate to a close.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">In conclusion, the debate highlighted the tension between technical specialisation and the preservation of arbitral decision-making authority in construction disputes. Although both houses accepted that expert assistance has a role in arbitration, they differed on the extent to which that assistance could extend into the calculation of quantum.<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-style: italic;\">SCC Times is the official media partner for AIAC Asia ADR Week 2026. Read more about AIAC Asia ADR Week 2026:<\/p>\n<ul style=\"list-style-type: disc;\">\n<li>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/10\/malaysia-strengthens-adr-ecosystem-aiac-asia-adr-week-2026\/\" target=\"_blank\">Malaysia strengthens ADR Ecosystem ahead of AIAC&#8217;s Asia ADR Week 2026<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/12\/kainos-in-action-aiac-asia-adr-week-2026-opening\/\" target=\"_blank\">Kainos in Action: AIAC Asia ADR Week 2026 opens with a call for innovation, integrity and the future of dispute resolution<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/13\/asia-adr-week-2026-oral-advocacy-international-arbitration\/\" target=\"_blank\">Asia ADR Week 2026 panel stresses clarity, credibility and responsiveness in oral advocacy in International Arbitration<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/13\/asia-adr-week-2026-speakers-examine-the-limits-of-court-intervention-in-setting-aside-arbitral-awards\/\" target=\"_blank\">Asia ADR Week 2026: Speakers examine the limits of court intervention in setting aside arbitral awards<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/%20https\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/14\/asia-adr-week-2026-masterclass-energy-aiac-lhag\/\" target=\"_blank\">How ADR supports Malaysia&#8217;s evolving energy landscape: AIAC and LHAG masterclass at Asia ADR Week 2026<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/14\/malaysia-aiac-asia-adr-week-2026-dispute-resolution\/\" target=\"_blank\">Malaysia strengthens its position as a trusted jurisdiction for dispute resolution as AIAC Asia ADR Week 2026 opens<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/15\/asia-adr-week-2026-power-projects-dispute-prevention\/\" target=\"_blank\">When power projects go wrong: Asia ADR Week 2026 panel discusses early dispute prevention, contractual clarity and reliable evidence power projects<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/15\/asia-adr-week-2026-malaysia-energy-landscape\/\" target=\"_blank\">Malaysia&#8217;s changing energy landscape: Experts discuss rising data centre demand, energy transition, &amp; contractual risk allocation at AIAC Asia ADR Week 2026<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/16\/asia-adr-week-2026-andrea-carlevariss-keynote-address-scc-times\/\" target=\"_blank\">What will shape the future of dispute resolution? Andrea Carlevaris outlines six principles at AIAC Asia ADR Week 2026<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/17\/aiac-asia-adr-week-2026-jubilee-pledge\/\" target=\"_blank\">AIAC Jubilee Pledge: Eight pillars and a new tagline unveiled at the official launch of Asia ADR Week 2026<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/17\/aiac-asia-adr-week-2026-ai-digital-evidence-technology-disputes-in-arbitration\/\" target=\"_blank\">AIAC Asia ADR Week 2026: Experts Call for Early Digital Evidence Verification and Clearer AI Protocols in Arbitration<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/17\/aiac-asia-adr-week-2026-robert-volterra-special-lecture-international-rule-of-law\/\" target=\"_blank\">AIAC Asia ADR Week 2026: Professor Robert G. Volterra&#8217;s special lecture on arbitration&#8217;s contribution to the international rule of law<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/%20https\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/18\/aiac-arbitration-rules-2026-aiac-asia-adr-week\/\" target=\"_blank\">AIAC Arbitration Rules 2026: Experts examine award scrutiny, expedited procedures and third-party funding at Asia ADR Week 2026<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/19\/asia-adr-week-2026-i-arbitration-rules-2026\/\" target=\"_blank\">AIAC Asia ADR Week 2026: Experts discuss Sharia compliance in FinTech disputes, AIAC i-Arbitration Rules 2026, and the role of Islamic ADR<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/19\/asia-adr-week-2026-construction-disputes-adjudication-ai\/\" target=\"_blank\">AIAC Asia ADR Week 2026: Justice Mimmie Chan Highlights Speed, Enforceability and Technology in Construction Dispute Resolution<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/20\/aiac-asia-adr-week-2026-construction-disputes-energy-transition-data-centre\/\" target=\"_blank\">Fast-track arbitration, FIDIC time limits and DAABs: Experts on data centre and energy construction disputes at AIAC Asia ADR Week 2026<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/20\/asia-adr-week-2026-collaborative-contracting-construction-disputes\/\" target=\"_blank\">AIAC Asia ADR Week 2026: Experts examine collaborative contracting as a tool for construction dispute avoidance<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<hr\/>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn1\" href=\"#fnref1\">1.<\/a> PCA Case No. 2005-04\/AA227<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn2\" href=\"#fnref2\">2.<\/a> CRCICA Case No. 467\/2006<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt; text-indent: -18pt;\"><a id=\"fn3\" href=\"#fnref3\">3.<\/a> ICC Case No. 26851\/AZO\/SP\/ETT<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p style=\"font-style: italic;\">In a debate held at the AIAC Asia ADR Week 2026 on the topic &#8220;Leave It to the Experts? Experts versus Arbitrators on Construction Quantum&#8221;, the debaters examined the appropriate division of responsibilities between arbitral tribunals and technical experts, the importance of party autonomy, the enforceability of arbitral awards, and the need to preserve procedural fairness.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67524,"featured_media":399760,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[109505,97664,107243],"tags":[55048,41517,118083,35672,116948,90608,118070,118074,54467,82344,118068,118071,118072,58112,118089,118087,118078,118085,30032,118069,2805,49063,52209,118086,118080,118088,118075,118082,118076,118077,113824,118073,118081,118079,118084],"class_list":["post-399751","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-asia-adr-week","category-events-collaborations","category-international","tag-aiac","tag-appointment-of-arbitrators","tag-arbitral-decision-making-authority","tag-arbitral-tribunal","tag-asia-adr-week-2026","tag-asian-international-arbitration-centre","tag-austen-pereira","tag-christopher-arun-francis","tag-construction-arbitration","tag-construction-disputes","tag-daniel-chua","tag-dato-mary-lim-thiam-suan","tag-dmitry-kaysin","tag-enforceability-of-arbitral-awards","tag-evaluation-of-expert-evidence","tag-expert-assistance-in-arbitration","tag-expert-evidence-in-arbitration","tag-independent-experts","tag-international-arbitration","tag-lynnda-lim","tag-natural_justice","tag-new-york-convention","tag-party-autonomy","tag-party-appointed-experts","tag-quantity-surveyors-in-construction-disputes","tag-quantum-assessment-in-construction-disputes","tag-quantum-determination","tag-reasoned-arbitral-awards","tag-role-of-arbitrators","tag-role-of-quantum-experts","tag-setting-aside-of-arbitral-awards","tag-sr-john-wong","tag-technical-and-computational-errors-in-construction-arbitration","tag-technical-experts-in-arbitration","tag-tribunal-composition"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v25.1 (Yoast SEO v28.2) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>AIAC Asia ADR Week 2026: Debate on quantum determination in construction disputes | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Experts debate role of experts in determining quantum in construction disputes at AIAC Asia ADR Week 2026\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/26\/aiac-asia-adr-week-2026-debate-on-quantum-determination-in-construction-disputes\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Stepping up or setting aside? Experts debate role of experts in determining quantum in construction disputes at AIAC Asia ADR Week 2026\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Experts debate role of experts in determining quantum in construction disputes at AIAC Asia ADR Week 2026\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/26\/aiac-asia-adr-week-2026-debate-on-quantum-determination-in-construction-disputes\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-10-26T10:34:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-10-26T11:00:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/AIAC-Asia-ADR-Week-2026-3.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Sonali Ahuja\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Stepping up or setting aside? Experts debate role of experts in determining quantum in construction disputes at AIAC Asia ADR Week 2026\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sonali Ahuja\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/26\\\/aiac-asia-adr-week-2026-debate-on-quantum-determination-in-construction-disputes\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/26\\\/aiac-asia-adr-week-2026-debate-on-quantum-determination-in-construction-disputes\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Sonali Ahuja\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/804215d21fa5732c2ccd62c9f0e3d5b8\"},\"headline\":\"Stepping up or setting aside? Experts debate role of experts in determining quantum in construction disputes at AIAC Asia ADR Week 2026\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-10-26T10:34:41+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-10-26T11:00:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/26\\\/aiac-asia-adr-week-2026-debate-on-quantum-determination-in-construction-disputes\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":4156,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/26\\\/aiac-asia-adr-week-2026-debate-on-quantum-determination-in-construction-disputes\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/AIAC-Asia-ADR-Week-2026-3.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"AIAC\",\"Appointment of Arbitrators\",\"Arbitral Decision-Making Authority\",\"Arbitral Tribunal\",\"Asia ADR Week 2026\",\"Asian International Arbitration Centre\",\"Austen Pereira\",\"Christopher Arun Francis\",\"Construction Arbitration\",\"Construction Disputes\",\"Daniel Chua\",\"Dato' Mary Lim Thiam Suan\",\"Dmitry Kaysin\",\"Enforceability of Arbitral Awards\",\"Evaluation of Expert Evidence\",\"Expert Assistance in arbitration\",\"Expert Evidence in arbitration\",\"Independent Experts\",\"International arbitration\",\"Lynnda Lim\",\"natural justice\",\"New York Convention\",\"Party Autonomy\",\"Party-Appointed Experts\",\"Quantity Surveyors in construction disputes\",\"Quantum Assessment in construction disputes\",\"Quantum Determination\",\"Reasoned Arbitral Awards\",\"Role of Arbitrators\",\"Role of Quantum Experts\",\"Setting Aside of Arbitral Awards\",\"Sr. John Wong\",\"Technical and Computational Errors in construction arbitration\",\"Technical Experts in arbitration\",\"Tribunal Composition\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Asia ADR Week\",\"Events &amp; Collaborations\",\"International\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/26\\\/aiac-asia-adr-week-2026-debate-on-quantum-determination-in-construction-disputes\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/26\\\/aiac-asia-adr-week-2026-debate-on-quantum-determination-in-construction-disputes\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/26\\\/aiac-asia-adr-week-2026-debate-on-quantum-determination-in-construction-disputes\\\/\",\"name\":\"AIAC Asia ADR Week 2026: Debate on quantum determination in construction disputes | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/26\\\/aiac-asia-adr-week-2026-debate-on-quantum-determination-in-construction-disputes\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/26\\\/aiac-asia-adr-week-2026-debate-on-quantum-determination-in-construction-disputes\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/AIAC-Asia-ADR-Week-2026-3.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-10-26T10:34:41+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-10-26T11:00:17+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/804215d21fa5732c2ccd62c9f0e3d5b8\"},\"description\":\"Experts debate role of experts in determining quantum in construction disputes at AIAC Asia ADR Week 2026\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/26\\\/aiac-asia-adr-week-2026-debate-on-quantum-determination-in-construction-disputes\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/26\\\/aiac-asia-adr-week-2026-debate-on-quantum-determination-in-construction-disputes\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/26\\\/aiac-asia-adr-week-2026-debate-on-quantum-determination-in-construction-disputes\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/AIAC-Asia-ADR-Week-2026-3.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/AIAC-Asia-ADR-Week-2026-3.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"AIAC Asia ADR Week 2026\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/26\\\/aiac-asia-adr-week-2026-debate-on-quantum-determination-in-construction-disputes\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Stepping up or setting aside? Experts debate role of experts in determining quantum in construction disputes at AIAC Asia ADR Week 2026\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/804215d21fa5732c2ccd62c9f0e3d5b8\",\"name\":\"Sonali Ahuja\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/5faab43abee2061c8d25b9f681654d2c9244515f0993a2aa038c45ccd42727bd?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/5faab43abee2061c8d25b9f681654d2c9244515f0993a2aa038c45ccd42727bd?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/5faab43abee2061c8d25b9f681654d2c9244515f0993a2aa038c45ccd42727bd?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sonali Ahuja\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/sonali\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"AIAC Asia ADR Week 2026: Debate on quantum determination in construction disputes | SCC Times","description":"Experts debate role of experts in determining quantum in construction disputes at AIAC Asia ADR Week 2026","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/26\/aiac-asia-adr-week-2026-debate-on-quantum-determination-in-construction-disputes\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Stepping up or setting aside? Experts debate role of experts in determining quantum in construction disputes at AIAC Asia ADR Week 2026","og_description":"Experts debate role of experts in determining quantum in construction disputes at AIAC Asia ADR Week 2026","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/26\/aiac-asia-adr-week-2026-debate-on-quantum-determination-in-construction-disputes\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-10-26T10:34:41+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-10-26T11:00:17+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/AIAC-Asia-ADR-Week-2026-3.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Sonali Ahuja","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Stepping up or setting aside? Experts debate role of experts in determining quantum in construction disputes at AIAC Asia ADR Week 2026","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sonali Ahuja","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/26\/aiac-asia-adr-week-2026-debate-on-quantum-determination-in-construction-disputes\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/26\/aiac-asia-adr-week-2026-debate-on-quantum-determination-in-construction-disputes\/"},"author":{"name":"Sonali Ahuja","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/804215d21fa5732c2ccd62c9f0e3d5b8"},"headline":"Stepping up or setting aside? Experts debate role of experts in determining quantum in construction disputes at AIAC Asia ADR Week 2026","datePublished":"2026-10-26T10:34:41+00:00","dateModified":"2026-10-26T11:00:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/26\/aiac-asia-adr-week-2026-debate-on-quantum-determination-in-construction-disputes\/"},"wordCount":4156,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/26\/aiac-asia-adr-week-2026-debate-on-quantum-determination-in-construction-disputes\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/AIAC-Asia-ADR-Week-2026-3.webp","keywords":["AIAC","Appointment of Arbitrators","Arbitral Decision-Making Authority","Arbitral Tribunal","Asia ADR Week 2026","Asian International Arbitration Centre","Austen Pereira","Christopher Arun Francis","Construction Arbitration","Construction Disputes","Daniel Chua","Dato' Mary Lim Thiam Suan","Dmitry Kaysin","Enforceability of Arbitral Awards","Evaluation of Expert Evidence","Expert Assistance in arbitration","Expert Evidence in arbitration","Independent Experts","International arbitration","Lynnda Lim","natural justice","New York Convention","Party Autonomy","Party-Appointed Experts","Quantity Surveyors in construction disputes","Quantum Assessment in construction disputes","Quantum Determination","Reasoned Arbitral Awards","Role of Arbitrators","Role of Quantum Experts","Setting Aside of Arbitral Awards","Sr. John Wong","Technical and Computational Errors in construction arbitration","Technical Experts in arbitration","Tribunal Composition"],"articleSection":["Asia ADR Week","Events &amp; Collaborations","International"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/26\/aiac-asia-adr-week-2026-debate-on-quantum-determination-in-construction-disputes\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/26\/aiac-asia-adr-week-2026-debate-on-quantum-determination-in-construction-disputes\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/26\/aiac-asia-adr-week-2026-debate-on-quantum-determination-in-construction-disputes\/","name":"AIAC Asia ADR Week 2026: Debate on quantum determination in construction disputes | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/26\/aiac-asia-adr-week-2026-debate-on-quantum-determination-in-construction-disputes\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/26\/aiac-asia-adr-week-2026-debate-on-quantum-determination-in-construction-disputes\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/AIAC-Asia-ADR-Week-2026-3.webp","datePublished":"2026-10-26T10:34:41+00:00","dateModified":"2026-10-26T11:00:17+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/804215d21fa5732c2ccd62c9f0e3d5b8"},"description":"Experts debate role of experts in determining quantum in construction disputes at AIAC Asia ADR Week 2026","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/26\/aiac-asia-adr-week-2026-debate-on-quantum-determination-in-construction-disputes\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/26\/aiac-asia-adr-week-2026-debate-on-quantum-determination-in-construction-disputes\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/26\/aiac-asia-adr-week-2026-debate-on-quantum-determination-in-construction-disputes\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/AIAC-Asia-ADR-Week-2026-3.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/AIAC-Asia-ADR-Week-2026-3.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"AIAC Asia ADR Week 2026"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/26\/aiac-asia-adr-week-2026-debate-on-quantum-determination-in-construction-disputes\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Stepping up or setting aside? Experts debate role of experts in determining quantum in construction disputes at AIAC Asia ADR Week 2026"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/804215d21fa5732c2ccd62c9f0e3d5b8","name":"Sonali Ahuja","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5faab43abee2061c8d25b9f681654d2c9244515f0993a2aa038c45ccd42727bd?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5faab43abee2061c8d25b9f681654d2c9244515f0993a2aa038c45ccd42727bd?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5faab43abee2061c8d25b9f681654d2c9244515f0993a2aa038c45ccd42727bd?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sonali Ahuja"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/sonali\/"}]}},"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/AIAC-Asia-ADR-Week-2026-3.webp","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/399751","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67524"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=399751"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/399751\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":399753,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/399751\/revisions\/399753"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/399760"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=399751"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=399751"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=399751"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}