In last week’s post, I outlined the views of the two camps in the “great section 108A debate”, namely:
So where do I stand on this? Continue reading
In Perriam v Wayne and Daly, the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) considered a deed of variation that “would win no drafting prizes for precision or clarity”. Not only did it transpose the names of various parties, it also “struggled to convey the essential agreement reached between the parties”.
In trying to work out what the parties had meant, the TCC decided it could and would consider “absolutely anything which would have affected the way in which the language of the document would have been understood by a reasonable man.” Continue reading
The Society of Construction Law has hosted various “great” debates over the years, most memorably the Great Delay Analysis Debate. A new title the SCL may wish to consider is the “great section 108A debate”, as I seem to hear about little else at the moment.
There is extensive experience within the UK construction and engineering industries (and the advisers to those industries) of working in many different parts of the world. However, there is now a need (as opposed to a willingness) to work abroad because of the reduced workload in the UK. Less experienced companies will seek to work internationally, possibly for the first time. Some (including experienced players) might be willing to take on more risk than would be acceptable under normal market conditions in order to secure the revenue they need to keep the financial wolf from the door.
We regularly act for clients negotiating professional appointments. Historically, in the domestic market, professional consultants had not sought to limit liability for losses caused by their negligence or breach. However, over the past few years, requests for limits on liability have become increasingly common.
It’s been interesting to follow some of the debate in the legal press and online about whether there is a new line of authority developing in England and Wales about concurrent delay under a construction or engineering contract.
To simplify, concurrent delay refers to a period when two events have occurred, both of which delay the progress of the works under the contract, and:
As an adjudicator, asking yourself the correct question (even if you get the answer wrong) is one of the keys to issuing a decision that should be complied with and which the parties will be able to enforce in the TCC. Over the years, we’ve had several judgments on the point. They date back to Dyson J’s 1999 judgment in Bouygues v Dahl-Jensen, where he said:
“If [the adjudicator] has answered the right question in the wrong way, his decision will be binding. If he has answered the wrong question, his decision will be a nullity.” Continue reading
