HONDURAS Trends and Developments Contributed by: Benito Zelaya, Alejandro Cáceres, Juan Carlos Benítez and Luis Ernesto Cruz Gamero, Lexincorp
Most disputes involve complex technical issues, including delays, cost overruns, defects, or compli- ance with technical specifications. Experts do not simply explain facts. Their analysis often underpins the parties’ claims. In civil litigation, experts are com- monly appointed by the court. In arbitration, parties typically appoint their own experts, creating a more adversarial and detailed technical debate. This approach allows for a deeper analysis of issues such as delay analysis (assessing the impact of events on the project’s critical path), cost modelling (quantify- ing additional costs or damages), and technical per- formance assessments (evaluating compliance with contractual standards). A further distinction lies in timing. In many civil systems, expert reports must be submitted with the statement of claim or defence. This limits the ability to respond to the opposing party’s technical arguments. Arbitration offers greater flexibility. Expert reports are often developed and submitted later, in line with a procedural timetable agreed with the tribunal. This enables more robust, responsive, and refined expert analysis. Procedural tools such as cross-examination and joint expert sessions also enable tribunals to test competing opinions more effectively. Although these tools are allowed in civil litigation, they are not commonly used by civil courts because they prefer to appoint their own expert to solve any remaining areas of disagreement between the party-appointed experts. Overall, arbitration provides a framework better suited to the technical complexity of construction disputes. Practical considerations for the international investor Recommendations on the selection of the seat , language and rules applicable in cross - border contracts In cross-border infrastructure contracts, the choice of the seat of arbitration, language, and applicable rules is a strategic decision. It can materially affect both the process and the outcome of the arbitration. The seat determines the legal framework (lex arbitri) and the level of court intervention. Parties should select jurisdictions with modern arbitration laws, aligned with
international standards, and a pro-arbitration judici- ary. Neutrality is also critical to ensure confidence between the parties. The language should be chosen on practical and cost- effective grounds. English is often preferred in inter- national projects due to its neutrality and widespread use among arbitrators and experts. However, the lan- guage of the project documents must also be consid- ered, as translation costs can be significant. Parties should also select established arbitral institutions with procedures suited to complex construction disputes. It is good practice to complement institutional rules with internationally recognised standards, such as the International Bar Association (IBA) Rules on the Taking of Evidence, which provide flexible procedures that enhance the procedure’s efficiency. Additional guidance on case management or docu- ment production may further enhance procedural predictability. A well-balanced combination of these elements improves the overall efficiency of the arbi- tration, reduces procedural risks, and strengthens the enforceability of the award. Legal certainty : the enforcement and recognition of arbitral awards in the jurisdiction under the New York Convention and domestic regulations For the international investor evaluating a construc- tion or infrastructure project in the Central Ameri- can region, legal certainty in dispute resolution does not end with the drafting of an arbitration clause ‒ it depends critically on the enforceability of any result- ing award in the jurisdiction where the counterparty’s assets are located. I) Enforcement under the New York Convention Honduras is a party to the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”), which it ratified without significant reservations. Under this frame- work, a foreign arbitral award — whether issued under ICC, LCIA, AAA/ICDR, or any other recognised insti- tutional rules — is entitled to recognition and enforce- ment by Honduran courts, subject only to the narrowly construed grounds for refusal set forth in Article V of the Convention. Honduras’ domestic arbitration leg-
266 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook