This paper addresses the issue of how ADR methods can obstruct the development of construction law authorities in the courts of common law countries. The author, Professor Doug Jones AM, discusses this important issue by reference to the continued development of construction law within Australia, the United Kingdom, Singapore, Malaysia and New Zealand.While considerable amounts of ink have been spilled looking at North America, other common law jurisdictions have received little attention. This paper will first refer to statistics regarding trials within Australia and the UK. While statistics are not provided for Singapore, Malaysia and New Zealand, the included jurisdictions arerepresentative of broader trends within common law countries. Following this, the perceived defects of litigation will be examined, alongside the relative strengths and weaknesses of ADR in order to explore the reasons for the popularity of ADR particularly within the construction industry. For the purposes of this paper, the term "ADR" will be used to refer to both binding and non-binding forms of non-judicial dispute resolution, encompassing (but not limited to) mediation, facilitated negotiation, dispute review boards, relationship contracting, adjudication and arbitration. The paper will then look at contemporary developments within the common law, in order to address the question of whether the common law has already begun to stagnate. Finally, this paper will conclude with some possible solutions to the problems posed, and a reassurance that while change is certainly upon us, all is not as dire as it may seem tadalafil tablets.