‘Round one was an adjudication enforcement application before Lord Doherty in the Scottish courts. The contractor (Dickie & Moore) had succeeded in an adjudication and, when the adjudicator’s decision went unpaid, issued court proceedings to get its money.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 19th November 2019
‘Both contractors and developers often enter into joint ventures to carry out a specific project. It enables parties to bid on larger projects, pool their resources, including specialised knowledge, and spread risk across the participants. The recent decision in Doosan Enpure Ltd v Interserve Construction Ltd serves as a reminder to participants in construction joint ventures of the potential pitfalls of intra-JV disputes.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 13th November 2019
‘Firefighters’ ‘stay put’ tactics and apparent lack of preparation and construction materials criticised.’
The Guardian, 30th October 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘It’s a scenario we see all too often. Employer meets contractor. Employer and contractor enter into a contract and, for a while, everything seems rosy. Then, as the project progresses, unresolved claims start escalating and the relationship deteriorates. Inevitably, the parties’ minds turn to adjudication, and the potential recourse that they may find there.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 21st October 2019
‘The High Court has provided guidance to parties on the application of the payment provisions in the 1996 Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act (“Construction Act”) to “hybrid” contracts, which cover both construction and non-construction operations.’
OUT-LAW.com, 10th October 2019
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘For some years now modular construction has been on the increase for new buildings, particularly in the hotel sector where it is now the norm for new hotels to be supplied with bathrooms and bedrooms manufactured off site. Indeed, I suspect that most of us have stayed in such rooms without even realising that more or less everything in the room (except the loose furniture) was installed off site, and sometimes many thousands of miles off-site. It may be because I only see the projects where things have gone awry and disputes have arisen, but, having decided a few disputes regarding modular building products, it’s clear that this part of the industry remains susceptible to the types of disputes we see with more traditional methods of construction. I want to talk about one such case this week, namely the Court of Appeal’s decision in Bennett (Construction) Ltd v CIMC MBS Ltd (formerly Verbus Systems Ltd) (which it handed-down at the end of August).’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 10th September 2019
‘Coming into effect on 1 October 2019, the reverse charge in relation to building and construction services is set to bring about a major change in how VAT is handled in the construction sector. All those involved – including developers – need to be aware of when it will apply and how it will work.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 3rd September 2019
‘Every professional negligence lawyer knows that establishing the necessary causative link between a professional’s breach of duty and the loss suffered by the client can be the most difficult aspect of any claim. That can prove even more problematic in construction professional negligence cases, in particular those involving costs “overrun”, both because of the broader range of alternative hypotheticals and the number of other professionals involved with the project.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 6th August 2019
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘For the litigators among you, it is also summer recess in the courts, which means there is often very little new to write about. Therefore, I was quite pleased to see Waksman J’s judgment in ICCT Ltd v Sylvein Pinto, which dates from earlier in the year but only recently became available. If you are unfamiliar with this judgment, it is certainly a case of “homeowners beware”.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 14th August 2019
‘When it is a plant thermally treating waste. Or is it still a power plant? This was the question that Mr Jonathan Acton Davis QC had to grapple with in Engie Fabricom UK Ltd v MW High Tech Projects UK Ltd. As is often the case when it comes to the exclusions under section 105(2) of the Construction Act 1996, the answer was as clear as mud!’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 30th July 2019
‘Willow engaged MTD to design and build a hotel in Shoreditch. As a result of delays in the project, the two parties agreed a revised practical completion date of 28 July 2017 (‘June Agreement’).’
Hardwicke Chambers, 28th June 2019
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘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?’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 11th June 2019
‘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.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 4th June 2019
‘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.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 22nd May 2019
‘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.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 15th May 2019
‘A Court of Appeal ruling clarifies the meaning of “practical completion”, a common source of dispute between construction contractors and employers.’
OUT-LAW.com, 13th May 2019
Source: www.out-law.com
‘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.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 8th May 2019
‘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.’
Litigation Futures, 7th May 2019
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 1st May 2019
© Inner Temple Library 2025