By S&S Co. Advocates & Solicitors · Published 9 June 2026 · Informational content, not legal advice
About this article: A general explainer prepared by S&S Co. Advocates & Solicitors on a recurring type of dispute. It does not report a specific judgment or order, names no parties and gives no case citation, so it should not be cited as authority. Law and practice change; please verify against the current statute and primary sources before relying on it.
Many works and infrastructure contracts, especially those based on FIDIC-style conditions, provide for a Dispute Resolution Board (DRB) or similar body to give recommendations before a dispute goes to arbitration. Whether a DRB recommendation is binding depends on the wording of the contract.
Some clauses make the recommendation binding on the parties unless one of them gives a notice of dissatisfaction within a stated period, often 28 days. Where the clause says so, a party that misses the deadline may find that the recommendation has become a binding contractual obligation, and the other party can seek to enforce it, including by an application for interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Other clauses treat the recommendation as only advisory.
Whether a party can enforce a DRB recommendation without a prior award, and how far a court will go at the interim stage, depends on the clause and on the court. A party may also challenge the recommendation by serving a notice of dissatisfaction on time and referring the dispute to arbitration.
Key Points
- Whether a DRB recommendation is binding depends on the wording of the contract.
- The notice-of-dissatisfaction period is usually short, and missing it can have serious consequences.
- Interim enforcement of a binding recommendation can be sought under Section 9 in suitable cases.