Disputes - Construction Contracts - page 340

mitted. The respondent may prevaricate, thus giving rise to the inference that he does
not admit the claim. The respondent may simply remain silent for a period of time,
thus giving rise to the same inference.
The period of time for which a respondent may remain silent before a dispute is to be
inferred depends heavily upon the facts of the case and the contractual structure.
Where the gist of the claim is well known and it is obviously controversial, a very
shortperiodofsilencemaysufficetogiverisetothisinference.Wheretheclaimisno-
tifiedtosomeagentoftherespondentwhohasalegaldutytoconsidertheclaiminde-
pendently and then give a considered response, a longer period of time may be re-
quired before it can be inferred that mere silence gives rise to a dispute.
If the claimant imposes upon the respondent a deadline for responding to the claim,
thatdeadlinedoesnothavetheautomaticeffectofcurtailingwhatwouldotherwisebe
a reasonable time for responding. On the other hand, a stated deadline and the reasons
for its imposition may be relevant factors when the court comes to consider what is a
reasonable time for responding.
If the claim as presented by the claimant is so nebulous and ill-defined that the re-
spondent cannot sensibly respond to it, neither silence by the respondent nor even an
express non-admission is likely to give rise to a dispute for the purposes of arbitration
or adjudication. 1

5

6

7

These propositions were approved by the Court of Appeal in Collins (Contractors) Ltd v
Baltic Quay Management (1994) Ltd. 2 Many courts have observed that it will be obvious
in most cases when there is a dispute, and the requirement that there must be a dispute will
notbeinterpretedwithlegalisticrigidity.Ithasalsobeensaidthatwhenthephrase'dispute
or difference' is used, it is less hard-edged than using the word 'dispute' alone. 3