“A party to a dispute, particularly if there is arbitration, will learn three lessons (often too late): the importance of records, the importance of records and the importance of records. It is impossible to exaggerate the extent to which lawyers can find unexpected grounds, often quite real, on which to cast doubt on evidence if it is not backed by meticulously established records.”
Following business as usual this week, Practical Law Construction will send its last email of 2014 next week, to arrive in your inbox on Wednesday 24 December 2014. We are then taking a break until the new year.
The first email of 2015 will be sent to arrive in your inbox on Thursday 8 January 2015. This email will include reports of all developments since 23 December 2014, as well as Practical Law’s looking forward to 2015 pieces.
I have to confess to having a small chuckle to myself when I read Edwards-Stuart J’s comments in Harding v Paice about how the third adjudication appeared to be “a model of how an adjudication should not be conducted”. This didn’t seem to be a reflection of the adjudicator, who the judge had “considerable sympathy for”, but how the referring party had conducted itself. For example, the judgment refers to a considerable volume of material put before the adjudicator, hundreds of pages of authorities, electronic copies provided when the adjudicator wanted hard copies and a refusal to extend the 28 days to 42 days because the referring party thought it had an “open and shut matter” (which the adjudicator clearly did not agree with). I’m sure many of us will share the judge’s sympathy for the adjudicator, as we’ve all been there in one way or another.
A claim for interest will often be the first remedy sought in the event of late payment. As such, it is an issue close to the hearts of contracting parties. It is also often an area of confusion in the Gulf region given the general prohibition on the levying of interest under Islamic Sharia law, the underlying framework of the Gulf legal system.
In this final part of a three-part blog series, considering some key issues in the context of the Qatari and UAE construction markets, we look at how interest is dealt with under UAE and Qatari law. We have previously looked at liquidated damages (LDs) and time bars. Continue reading →
Edwards-Stuart J has recently held that main contract adjudication provisions were not incorporated into a sub-contract. As a result, the appointed adjudicator had jurisdiction to deal with the dispute over the non-payment of Inviron’s application for £643,283.
When advising on a home projectthere has never been a “right” answer to the question of which contract to choose. As is so often the case, the choice of contract should be governed by the needs of the parties and the project.
Last month, RIBA published two new contracts, the Concise Building Contract 2014 and the Domestic Building Contract 2014. As the titles imply, the first is for simple commercial building work (and is unsuitable for non-commercial work, such as work done to someone’s home). In contrast, the second is suitable for domestic work including “renovations, extensions, maintenance and new buildings”, but is unsuitable for commercial works.
So, with a new domestic contract in the market, are things about to change and, if they do, what does it mean for those parties that end up in a dispute with their builder?
Termination for convenience clauses are a common feature of modern commercial contracts. Terminating a contract in this way has the advantage of avoiding a default-based confrontation. It is also traditionally considered a more expensive way to terminate: parties invoking this type of clause will expect to pay an element of lost profit to the contractor or supplier. However, this will not always be the case, as Comau UK Ltd v Lotus Lightweight Structures illustrates. Continue reading →