A missed opportunity – Haberdashers and subrogation – Practical Law: Construction Blog

Posted June 11th, 2019 in construction industry, contracts, insurance, news by tracey

‘Earlier this year I found myself waiting for the Court of Appeal to bring the next instalment in a series of interesting decisions regarding subrogation claims in insurance disputes (not a contradiction in terms, I promise!), which I and my colleague John have been taking it in turns to blog about (see Joint insurance and rights of subrogation revisited and Co-insurance and subrogation rights revisited (again!)). Unfortunately (though perhaps not for those involved) the case in question (Haberdashers‘ Aske’s Federation Trust Ltd v Lakehouse Contracts Ltd and others) settled. But it feels as though there’s been a missed opportunity to answer a question that was left entirely open in Gard Marine and Energy Ltd v China National Chartering Company Ltd: where there is a co-insurance policy in place and a sub-contractor causes loss, if the co-insurance policy (for whatever reason) does not cover the sub-contractor, can the insurer bring a subrogated claim against the sub-contractor or, does it first have to prove the sub-contractor is liable for the loss?’

Full Story

Practical Law: Construction Blog, 11th June 2019

Source: constructionblog.practicallaw.com

What does “expert in the field of X” mean? – Practical Law: Construction Blog

‘Picture this scenario. The parties’ contract provides that when there is a dispute, an adjudicator is to be appointed from a panel of three, which the parties have already agreed on. In the alternative, if the parties cannot agree the identity of the three panel adjudicators, they will be nominated by the President of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) as the adjudicator nominating body (ANB). In the event, the parties fail to agree on who the three should be, and then one of them is unhappy with who the CIArb selects. This scenario played out before Jefford J earlier this year. It was, in effect, a dispute about a dispute, but led to some interesting comments from the judge about adjudicator nomination.’

Full Story

Practical Law: Construction Blog, 4th June 2019

Source: constructionblog.practicallaw.com

Further clarification on the impact of a CVA on adjudication enforcement – Practical Law: Construction Blog

Posted May 23rd, 2019 in appeals, construction industry, contracts, damages, enforcement, insolvency, news by tracey

‘In January, in the second of the two conjoined appeals of Bresco Electrical Services Ltd v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd, Cannon Corporate Ltd v Primus Build Ltd, the Court of Appeal upheld the first instance decision to enforce an adjudicator’s decision where the enforcing party was in a company voluntary arrangement (CVA). In contrast, last week in Indigo Projects London Ltd v Razin and another, the court refused to enforce an adjudicator’s decision where the enforcing party was in a CVA. The reasoning was that enforcement of the decision would interfere with the accounting exercise to be carried out under the CVA. The court provided useful guidance on when this argument is likely to succeed.’

Full Story

Practical Law: Construction Blog, 22nd May 2019

Source: constructionblog.practicallaw.com

Build UK’s recommendation on contract terms: a step in the right direction – Practical Law: Construction Blog

Posted May 20th, 2019 in codes of practice, construction industry, contracts, news, standards by tracey

‘Build UK, a leading representative organisation for the construction industry, has published a non-binding recommendation on which contract terms its members should (as a minimum) refrain from using. The recommendation “seeks to form a new common ground between clients and the supply chain on contractual practice in the construction sector” with the key objectives being “to promote collaboration, encourage a fairer allocation of risk through the supply chain, and deliver better project outcomes”. In this blog I look at each of Build UK’s recommendations and consider whether they represent a departure from current market practice, or a consolidation of the examples of best practice that we are already seeing clients and contractors adopting in the current market.’

Full Story

Practical Law: Construction Blog, 15th May 2019

Source: constructionblog.practicallaw.com

Court of Appeal judgment gives guidance on meaning of ‘practical completion’ – OUT-LAW

Posted May 14th, 2019 in appeals, construction industry, contracts, interpretation, leases, news by sally

‘A Court of Appeal ruling clarifies the meaning of “practical completion”, a common source of dispute between construction contractors and employers.’

Full Story

OUT-LAW.com, 13th May 2019

Source: www.out-law.com

(Un)signed, sealed, delivered: Anchor 2020 v Midas Construction – Practical Law: Construction Blog

Posted May 9th, 2019 in construction industry, contracts, dispute resolution, enforcement, news by tracey

‘It is common practice for parties in the construction industry to undertake work under a letter of intent before the contract is formally executed. This practice ensures that design can be undertaken, materials can be procured, the site can be prepared and, ultimately, work can begin notwithstanding ongoing contractual negotiations.’

Full Story

Practical Law: Construction Blog, 8th May 2019

Source: constructionblog.practicallaw.com

Part 36 offer that included unpleaded counterclaim ruled valid – Litigation Futures

Posted May 8th, 2019 in appeals, construction industry, delay, interest, negligence, news, part 36 offers by tracey

‘A part 36 offer made by a defendant in respect of both a claim and a proposed counterclaim which has yet to be pleaded is valid, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 7th May 2019

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Re-baselining construction projects: drawing a line in the sand – Practical Law: Construction Blog

Posted May 2nd, 2019 in construction industry, contracts, damages, delay, drafting, fees, news by tracey

‘As construction disputes lawyers, we see our fair share of settlement agreements. And not just the traditional full and final settlements, but also one page final account settlements, and “line in the sand” agreements in which the parties seek to renegotiate elements of the contract while it is in progress. These “line in the sand” agreements seem to feature disproportionately in court judgments, and in this blog I will look at the reasons why this might be the case.’

Full Story

Practical Law: Construction Blog, 1st May 2019

Source: constructionblog.practicallaw.com

Complications of practical completion – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted April 9th, 2019 in construction industry, contracts, landlord & tenant, leases, news by sally

‘Practical completion of works is often the trigger for other events, such as the grant of a lease. In that scenario, a landlord carries out works in accordance with a planning permission and specification pursuant to a building contract. When the works are practically complete in accordance with the building contract, the landlord will grant and the tenant will accept the lease.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 8th April 2019

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

“Practical completion” considered by Court Appeal for first time in 50 years – Practical Law: Construction Blog

Posted April 5th, 2019 in building law, construction industry, contracts, landlord & tenant, leases, news by tracey

‘It is well known that practical completion is often easier to recognise than it is to define, which is why the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Mears Ltd v Costplan Services (South East) Ltd and others is an important read for construction practitioners.’

Full Story

Practical Law: Construction Blog, 29th March 2019

Source: constructionblog.practicallaw.com

New evidence allows second valuation of works in adjudication dispute – OUT-LAW.com

Posted March 20th, 2019 in construction industry, contracts, jurisdiction, news, valuation by sally

‘A contractor has won a case in England over payment for work which was valued at nil by an adjudicator, after bringing new evidence to a later adjudication which the High Court said that the second adjudicator had jurisdiction to consider.’

Full Story

OUT-LAW.com, 19th March 2019

Source: www.out-law.com

New ruling does not resolve ‘smash and grab’ adjudication uncertainty – OUT-LAW.com

Posted February 28th, 2019 in construction industry, contracts, enforcement, news by tracey

‘A new court ruling leaves us little further forward on an employer’s right to adjudicate the true value of the sum due under a construction contract after failing to serve payment notices and without first paying the amount demanded by the contractor.’

Full Story

OUT-LAW.com, 27th February 2019

Source: www.out-law.com

Time bars under FIDIC 2017 – are more notices the answer? – Practical Law: Construction Blog

Posted February 22nd, 2019 in construction industry, contracts, news, time limits by tracey

‘Construction and engineering contracts often contain provisions specifying that, within a particular time, one party (traditionally the contractor) must notify the other (the employer and/or the contract administrator) of a claim or the likelihood that it might advance a claim. Sometimes these “time-bar” notice provisions are elevated beyond being merely an obligation, to the status of a condition precedent to being able to pursue a successful claim. If such provisions are enforceable, they can be severe: a failure to serve the required notice in the required timescale will be fatal, regardless of the merits of the underlying claim. A well-known example of such a provision is found in clause 20.1 of the 1999 FIDIC contracts.’

Full Story

Practical Law: Construction Blog, 20th February 2019

Source: constructionblog.practicallaw.com

Clancy Docwra Ltd v E.ON Energy Solutions Ltd [2018] EWHC 3124 (TCC) – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted February 20th, 2019 in building law, construction industry, contracts, documents, news, rectification, tenders by sally

‘In this case tender documentation appended to the Sub-Contract documentation had the effect of limiting the scope of obligations under the Sub-Contract.’

Full Story

Hardwicke Chambers, 25th January 2019

Source: hardwicke.co.uk

Shutting Pandora’s Box – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted February 19th, 2019 in appeals, construction industry, contracts, injunctions, insolvency, jurisdiction, news by sally

‘Ever since 31 July 2018, when Fraser J handed down his judgment in Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd v Bresco Electrical Services Ltd (in liquidation) [2018] EWHC 2043 (TCC), many of those involved in either insolvency or construction have been in a state of confusion tinged with disbelief. The potential ramifications were quite startling and the unease was only heightened by the more or less contemporary but very different decision of HHJ Waksman QC (as he then was) in Cannon Corporate Ltd v Primus Build Ltd [2018] EWHC 2143 (TCC). Both matters came before the Court of Appeal in November, since when the legal profession has been holding its collective breath. Now that the Court of Appeal has handed down its much-awaited judgment in these conjoined appeals the exhalation has been audible.’

Full Story

Hardwicke Chambers, 7th February 2019

Source: hardwicke.co.uk

The primacy of insolvency law over construction law – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted February 19th, 2019 in appeals, construction industry, contracts, insolvency, jurisdiction, news by sally

‘With the Court of Appeal’s decision in Bresco Electrical Services Ltd v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd just a few weeks old, it is hardly surprising that people are looking again at the relationship between insolvency law and adjudication, noting that in cases of liquidation where parties have a cross claim, construction law defers to insolvency law.’

Full Story

Hardwicke Chambers, 14th February 2019

Source: hardwicke.co.uk

Cannon Corporate Ltd v Primus Build Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 27 – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted February 19th, 2019 in appeals, construction industry, enforcement, insolvency, jurisdiction, news by sally

‘This was a conjoined appeal alongside Bresco v Lonsdale. In this case, Cannon and Primus had already participated in an adjudication, with the decision of the adjudicator favouring Primus. Primus would later enter into a Company Voluntary Arrangement.’

Full Story

Hardwicke Chambers, 13th February 2019

Source: hardwicke.co.uk

Adjudication and insolvency – guidance from the Court of Appeal – Practical Law: Construction Blog

‘Summer 2018 will be remembered as a special time by many readers of this blog: whether it was the spectacular weather, the giddy heights hit by the England football team, or Fraser J’s decision in Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd v Bresco Electrical Services Ltd (In Liquidation), it was a summer to remember.’

Full Story

Practical Law: Construction Blog, 6th February 2019

Source: constructionblog.practicallaw.com

Liquidators can use, but not enforce, adjudication in construction contracts – OUT-LAW.com

‘Companies in liquidation can theoretically refer claims to an adjudicator under construction law but it would be a futile exercise as the decision could not be enforced in most cases, the Court of Appeal in England has ruled.’

Full Story

OUT-LAW.com, 4th February 2019

Source: www.out-law.com

Does Cannon v Primus mean an end to general jurisdictional reservations? – Practical Law: Construction Blog

‘It was only published at the end of last week, so I’m not sure if you’ve had chance to look at Coulson LJ’s judgment in Bresco Electrical Services Ltd v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd, Cannon Corporate Ltd v Primus Build Ltd. If not, then you should. It contains some important stuff about liquidation and CVAs, and when it is appropriate (and possible) to adjudicate if the referring party is subject to one of those processes.’

Full Story

Practical Law: Construction Blog, 30th January 2019

Source: constructionblog.practicallaw.com