Monthly Archives: April 2009

Navesh Chitrakar
REUTERS | Navesh Chitrakar

Duty to warn

“Timber!”

However loud or often I say it, will anyone really listen to the warning?

Site can be a dangerous place. Much of what goes on in or around a construction site is, or at least has the potential to be, dangerous. There is a lot of heavy, powerful equipment being moved around, used and stored. While some of the parties who interact on site will have a contract with each other, in fact, many of them don’t. Continue reading

Eric Thayer
REUTERS | Eric Thayer
In my previous post, I outlined the facts in Langstane Housing Association Ltd v Riverside Construction Aberdeen Ltd and considered the judge’s surprising decision on the meaning of “current” when deciding which version of the ACE conditions applied. In this post I look at the judge’s analysis of the net contribution clause in the ACE conditions and the potential application of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA).

Continue reading

Bob Strong
REUTERS | Bob Strong

The Government is abandoning its plan to build three “titan” prisons, each of which would have housed 2,500 inmates.

The decision, announced by Justice Minister Jack Straw, is a blow to the construction industry as the prisons were expected to cost around £1.2 billion, much of which would have been spent on construction. Instead, the Government now plans to build five smaller prisons, each housing 1,500 inmates. Only two of these prisons will go ahead immediately. Continue reading

Mike Blake
REUTERS | Mike Blake

The decision in Langstane Housing Association Ltd v Riverside Construction Aberdeen Ltd features some highly dubious judicial reasoning and illustrates the extent to which the courts are out of touch with the real world of contract negotiations for major construction projects. Although a Scottish case, its findings will resonate in England and Wales as well.

Continue reading

Luke MacGregor
REUTERS | Luke MacGregor

Since the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill 2008 (the Bill) was published last year, a number of amendments to its construction provisions have been proposed (see blog post). At the end of the committee stage in the House of Lords, the Government made it clear that it would not support any of the proposed amendments. In response, all of the amendments were withdrawn or not formally proposed (see blog post). Continue reading