Fast-track procedure for construction disputes: 1+1 equals three

The Court of First Instance of East Flanders, Ghent division, will launch a new type of procedure on 1 September 2025 in a sector where the saying “time is money” always applies — the construction sector.

The renewed “1+1” procedure in the construction chamber promises to be a welcome relief for construction professionals and private individuals seeking swift clarity in their disputes. Specifically designed for cases of limited scope and complexity, this procedure makes it possible to prepare a case for judgment within one month and obtain a ruling within an additional month. Hence the name: 1+1

The 1+1 procedure is based on an agreement between the parties and the court. Below is a summary of the main conditions for applying the 1+1 procedure:

• Expedited briefing deadlines:
  • First brief by the defendant: 14 days after the procedural agreement is finalized
  • Brief by the plaintiff: 21 days after the procedural agreement is finalized
  • Final brief by the defendant: 28 days after the procedural agreement is finalized
• Limited length of briefs: Each brief may be no longer than 10 pages, including the header, table of contents, and requested rulings. This promotes readability and procedural efficiency and reflects the intent that this procedure is primarily reserved for cases of relatively limited scope and complexity.
• Digital submission: Briefs and supporting documents must be submitted digitally.
• No investigative measures required: The procedure is only applicable if no investigative measures are needed, or if such measures have already been completed.
• Good faith conduct: Parties are expected to act in good faith and with transparency.

After the case is set for trial, it may be taken under advisement in writing, without requiring the parties to appear in person. If the parties do wish to appear in person, the case will be postponed to a hearing date four weeks after the procedural agreement is finalized.

The 1+1 procedure is ideal for construction disputes where:

• The facts are largely undisputed;
• There is no need for additional expert investigation;
• Parties are willing to submit complete and honest conclusions in a single round.

Examples include disputes over defects, delivery deadlines, or limited damage claims between the client, contractor, and/or architect.

Why choose this approach in a construction dispute?

• Speed: A ruling on the merits can be issued within eight weeks.
• Cost-saving: Fewer hearings and less paperwork.
• Predictability: Clear deadlines and structure ensure transparency.
• Efficiency for the court: The procedure is designed to reduce the workload of judges, minimizing the risk of delays.

Finally, the pilot project should also help identify the limits of the 1+1 procedure. In construction disputes, it is common for more than two parties to be involved, which can lead to lengthy rounds of conclusions and extended expert investigations. The question is whether the 1+1 procedure, with its simplified conclusions and accelerated timelines, can also offer a solution in such cases.

In principle, it seems possible to apply the 1+1 procedure in a multi-party dispute, provided that the defending parties do not need to respond to each other’s conclusions—for example, in a third-party claim. In such a case, the procedure could be conducted between a client on one side and a contractor and architect on the other, or by a client against two contractors who each made separate mistakes. However, it should be emphasized that this may not be straightforward in practice.

Currently, the new procedure is only a pilot project in Ghent. Whether other courts in Belgium will adopt this approach remains to be seen. However, this local procedure offers a valuable case study on the effectiveness and efficiency of accelerated dispute resolution mechanisms to relieve the judicial system. If the Ghent pilot proves successful, it could set a precedent for broader implementation within Belgian courts of first instance.