‘A recent court decision which changed the point at which the six years within which a contractor must begin litigation in the courts starts to run could lead to uncertainty for the successful party to an earlier adjudication, an expert has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 12th December 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
‘This is the last gasp in the saga on whether Mrs Pallikaropoulos should bear £25,000 of the costs of her unsuccessful 2008 appeal to the House of Lords. And the answer, after intervening trips to the Supreme Court in 2010 and to the CJEU in 2013, is a finding by the Supreme Court that she should bear those costs.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 11th December 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Supreme Court, 11th December 2013
Aspect Contracts (Asbestos) Ltd v Higgins Construction Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1541; [2013] WLR (D) 463
‘On a true construction of an implied term in a construction contract a party was entitled, following an adjudication in which it had been the loser, but where it maintained that it had made an over-payment, to bring proceedings for repayment; and the applicable limitation period ran from the date of the over-payment.’
WLR Daily, 29th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Construction firms are to pay about £2.7m in compensation to the driver of a crane that collapsed in Liverpool, leaving him paralysed.”
BBC News, 5th November 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“Where, in adjudication proceedings brought pursuant to the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, the referring party did not assert in terms that the agreement in question was made otherwise than in writing, section 107(5) of the Act was not engaged.”
WLR Daily, 21st October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Major construction companies are to compensate workers whose names were on a secret industry blacklist. The dramatic development follows years of campaigning by unions after it was discovered that more than 3,200 names, mainly of building workers, were kept on the list, drawn up by a shadowy organisation called the Consulting Association.”
The Guardian, 10th October 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Parties to litigation in the civil courts need more guidance about what constitutes an ‘appropriate’ costs budget and the consequences of not meeting the requirements of the new costs management regime, an expert has said.”
OUT-LAW.com, 8th October 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“The inadvertent naming of the wrong builder in a proposal form for insurance against latent defects including cover for the insolvency of the builder during the construction of social housing units, constituted a breach of warranty entitling the insurers to avoid the policy.”
WLR Daily, 4th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A High Court judge has expressly declined to approve the costs budget of both sides of a construction dispute on the grounds that they were ‘disproportionate and unreasonable’.”
Litigation Futures, 4th October 2013
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
“Companies that blacklist workers for taking part in trade union activity face being barred from multibillion-pound public sector contracts under plans unveiled by the Welsh government.”
The Guardian, 11th September 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Generally, any landlord who wishes to enter into a qualifying long term agreement (‘QLTA’), viz. an agreement for a term of more than 12 months (subject to certain exceptions) as a result of which any tenant will pay a service charge of more than £100 (‘the appropriate amount’) for the relevant service charge period, must either consult in accordance with the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/1987) (‘the Regulations’) or obtain a dispensation from the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (‘PC’). Failure to consult will result in the relevant service charge being capped at the appropriate amount.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 13th August 2013
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
“The grounds for impeaching an adjudication decision are extremely limited. However, Mr Justice Akenhead recently held that ABB Ltd. v BAM Nuttall Ltd [2013] EWHC 1983 (TCC), as one of those relatively rare cases in which reliance by the adjudicator on a clause of the subcontract between the parties – which neither party argued (let alone mentioned to the adjudicator) and which he did not refer to the parties before issuing his decision – was a material breach of the rules of natural justice.”
4 New Square, 30th July 2013
Source: www.4newsquare.com
“The balance of public interest was ‘very strongly’ in favour of maintaining the confidentiality of documents in order to “protect the course of justice” both in Jackson v Info Commissioner, EA 2012/0263, FTT Decision on 19 July 2013, and in ‘many other such disputes’ said Judge Hughes. The value of the disclosure of the material was limited. The adverse impact of disclosure on dispute resolution was substantial. Judge Hughes concluded: ‘If there were to be change in the arrangements underpinning construction dispute resolution then this should be explored through a careful process of public debate and consultation leading to an amendment of the statutory framework.'”
Panopticon, 26th July 2013
Source: www.panopticonblog.com
Urban I (Blonk Street) Ltd v Ayres and another: [2013] EWCA Civ 816; [2013] WLR (D) 271
“Where, in the case of a time provision which was an innominate term, a completion notice had not been served on the contract-breaker, the other party only became entitled to terminate the contract thereafter if and when the delay was such as to go to the root of the contract, that was to say it deprived the other party of substantially the whole benefit which it was intended it should have under the contract.”
WLR Daily, 5th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Well–drawn guarantees contain comprehensive ‘anti-discharge’ provisions, designed to prevent a guarantor being discharged from liability by any post-guarantee amendments to the principal transaction or extensions of time to pay or other indulgence given to the principal debtor without the guarantor’s knowledge or consent. This right to be discharged is generally known as the rule in Holme v Brunskill (1878) 3 QBD 495) after the leading case that set out the mature principle. Banks and others have continuously refined these ‘anti-discharge’ provisions to try to make sure that the rule in Holme v Brunskill is stripped of its effect.”
Littleton Chambers, 9th July 2013
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
“A construction contract did not contain an implied term that a party to the contract, unsuccessful in adjudication, was entitled to have a final and binding resolution of the dispute determined by litigation.”
WLR Daily, 23rd May 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“In determining whether a breach of a contract had been repudiatory an important factor to be taken into account was whether, although serious, the breach had been remedied before the injured party had purported to exercise a right of termination of the contract. Likewise, if there had been delay in performance of an ongoing obligation, it might be possible for the delay to be made up by faster performance. The court had to consider the position as at the date when the injured party purported to terminate. In the absence of time being of the essence, delay would only become a repudiatory breach if it were so prolonged as to frustrate the contract.”
WLR Daily, 23rd May 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The breach by a sewerage undertaker of its duty under section 106 of the Water Industry Act 1991 to permit connection of a private sewer to the public sewer did not give rise to a liability in nuisance.”
WLR Daily, 27th March 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Westfields Construction Ltd v Lewis [2013] EWHC 376 (TCC); [2013] WLR (D) 93
“Occupation of a property was an ongoing process and could not be tested by reference to a single snapshot in time in determining whether a property owner was a ‘residential occupier’ for the purposes of section 106 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996.”
WLR Daily, 27th March 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024