Identification of Dispute Sources in the Construction Industry via Court Files

Abstract

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.