Julian Oggel, perspectives on alternative dispute resolution
UNUM believes it is important to raise awareness about the benefits of arbitration or for solving disputes. In this third edition of ‘Perspectives on alternative dispute resolution’ Julian Oggel, since October 2009 CEO of the Smits group, shares his views. Before 2009 Julian worked as a trade and transport lawyer in Rotterdam. Smits group is a privately owned direct investment company in Rotterdam. The focus is on integrating traditional manufacturing companies with modern deep tech- and fully sustainable business solutions.
Julian, which prevailing trends in the maritime industry, and in particular in your field of expertise, do you believe will have a substantial impact on doing business (and why)?
I believe there are at the moment five prevailing trends in every industry. These five current trends are the need for speed, scale, safety, sustainability and smartness. The maritime industry is no exception to being exposed to them, even if people active in shipping often seem to consider it unique and part of a separate universe to be distinguished from other economic activities people undertake.
These five trends do not stand on their own but interact constantly and even greatly enhance each other. They are to a business what the ingredients in a cooking recipe are to a dish. As with some food ingredients, some trends are more overpowering than others. In my view the main overriding trend now is (again: just like any other industry) smartness.
After all, modern ICT systems applied well always allow (even ensure) radical disruption of the way business is conducted, whatever that business is. In the maritime field, which is basically a string of sequential and standardized actions/events, modern ICT will for instance mean that traditional ways of linking and executing the various steps in the transport chain can be completely transformed by the constant and real-time sharing of information between machines. The people traditionally involved in those steps will only disrupt that prcess if they stick to the roles they originally had. Unless they adapt to the new roles that will be available (like with technological breakthroughs in the past, there is in my view no doubt that also this time jobs disappear but work stays), they will not be involved at all. This also because the effects will play positively into all of the other four trends. For that reason alone, it will in any case not be possible to stop the momentum from this trend to smarten everything up.
Which unforeseen areas of potential disputes between parties do you think might arise from these trends (and why)?
Thinking along traditional industry boundaries with the original rules and conditions that applied there, will in my view be a waste of precious time. Due to the speed with which change happens, the adaptation process will however still create a lot of tension between parties active in the maritime logistical chain beset by its slow adaptation to new realities.
How can mediation, whether or not combined with arbitration, help to create to mutually beneficial results and competitive advantage for all parties?
In my view by fully embracing the trends identified above and translating them effectively to the field of alternative dispute resolution. Swift solutions provided through knowledgeable actors using modern technological tools will yield desirable outcomes including cost leadership.
What would be the main reasons for parties to choose to opt for dispute resolution through the Dutch system?
According to me this can only be done by proving that legally robust and widely enforceable decisions can be obtained swiftly and at competitive costs.
What steps should companies take to be able to take full advantage of alternative dispute resolution?
Companies should in my view first of all be more aware of whether their business normally entails litigation or not. If so, they should act on it by, as part of their strategy, identify how they can best deal with such structural litigation. This should include regularly assessing the alternatives at their disposal for dispute resolution and what the above trends mean to them in that specific context.
