Expert Witness Journal Issue 68 August 2026 - Flipbook - Page 28
or ‘invisible’ 昀椀xings, such terminology should have
been expressly included. Instead, the speci昀椀cation
merely stated the stainless-steel sheets were to be
bonded to the GFRP panels.
its ability to conform to the panel curvature.
Moreover, the horizontal joints between sheets were
requested to be cut with a ‘zig zag’ pattern to give
the impression of a single continuous stainless-steel
sheet on each GFRP panel.
Similarly, neither the speci昀椀cation nor the drawings
were su昀케ciently detailed to prescribe the required
joint location or the joint pattern.
Parties’ Positions
The façade sub-contractor submitted that it was
unable to verify the additional cost arising from
these changes, relative to its tender proposal, until
a number of panels had actually been produced.
Once this had occurred, the façade sub-contractor
suggested the cost would now be double the amount
originally tendered.
These 昀椀ndings, including the Court’s acceptance
of expert evidence on the nature and impact of
the design changes, highlight the importance of
clear, unambiguous, and robust speci昀椀cations and
contract documents. Such clarity minimises gaps
in information, reduces the risk of unexpected cost
increases, and helps prevent disputes.
Despite the changes introduced, the sub-contractor’s
claim for additional costs was rejected. Moreover,
the client and its design team rejected the visual
mock ups without reference to the speci昀椀cation or to
any non-conformance with the Contract documents.
They further asserted that the introduction of the
hexagon scoring pattern was required to address the
façade sub-contractor’s alleged inability to resolve
bonding issues between the stainless steel sheets and
the GFRP panels, and was a means of achieving the
design intent of stainless steel bonded to the GFRP
over a doubly curved surface, despite the original
intent being a single curved façade.
Postscript
Please note that the contents of this article are
based on publicly available information and drawn
directly from the judgment in the DIFC Court
proceedings. The outcomes of these proceedings
also relied on the speci昀椀c contractual framework in
place between the parties. Accordingly, any dispute
arising in similar circumstances will ultimately
depend on its own speci昀椀c facts. On that basis, this
article is provided for information only and does not
constitute technical or legal advice.
Court’s Findings
About The Author
In its judgment, the Court agreed that the changes
in the panel size were not “minor”, expressly
accepting the expert evidence regarding the panel
sizes having been increased beyond 9m x 2m. The
Court was satis昀椀ed that changes to the design,
increased panel size and the introduction of the
hexagon pattern were for aesthetic reasons, and “not
based on engineering necessity”.
Austen Smith is an architect expert
at Hawkins, based in our Dubai
o昀케ce. He appeared for the façade
sub-contractor in the above case. He
opines on building failures due to
defective design and workmanship,
昀椀re safety defects, scope of work, design approvals
and variation disputes amongst others. Austen
is registered with the Architect’s Registration
Board, is a member of the Royal Institute of British
Architects, the Chartered Institute of Building, the
Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, the Society of
Construction Law and the Academy of Experts, and
is on the roster of arbitrators with the Saudi Centre
for Commercial Arbitration.
Conclusions
Whilst it was intended for the contractor to complete
the technical design of the façade, the performance
speci昀椀cation and design intent were found to lack
su昀케cient constraints to maintain the architect’s
vision without the need for design changes during
the contract works.
In accordance with the contractual documentation,
the panel sizing was de昀椀ned but was for the façade
sub-contractor to develop in line with its preferred
approach. However, the Court found that the façade
sub-contractor was not permitted to develop its
preferred module size, and therefore it could not be
held responsible for the increase in costs.
It was also determined that the speci昀椀cation was
not su昀케ciently detailed to prohibit the use of visible
昀椀xings. If the intention had been to require ‘secret’
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
26
AUGUST 2026
