Monthly Archives: August 2011

REUTERS | Lisi Niesner

Following Jackson LJ’s Review of Civil Litigation Costs: Final Report, published in January 2010, and a Ministry of Justice consultation paper in November 2010, lawyers waited with eager anticipation (or, in some cases, trepidation) as to what civil litigation costs reforms the government would recommend implementing. The Ministry of Justice’s response highlighted that “the way forward” is to implement Jackson LJ’s main reforms.

Continue reading

REUTERS | Tobias Schwarz

As I said previously, when I read Edwards-Stuart J’s judgment in Hyder v Carillion, two things struck me:

  • The court confirming that it is the decision of the adjudicator that is binding, not his reasoning.
  • The question an adjudicator should ask himself as to whether he should share or put his approach or interpretation to the parties?

This post considers the second point. Continue reading

REUTERS | Ricardo Moraes

With all aspects of court proceedings coming under scrutiny and reform to ensure they are cost effective, it is perhaps not surprising that the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) is looking at the Pre-Action Protocol for Construction and Engineering Disputes.

Is it a waste of time and money, or does the upfront investment lead the parties to settlement?

The TCC has announced that it has a working party undertaking a review to find out.  Continue reading

REUTERS | Eduardo Munoz

Time and time again, clients are confused about the differences between an obligation to maintain insurance and a limitation on liability clause. Confusing the two is a daily occurrence amongst builders, engineers, project managers and even company directors. Consequently, it is common for a client to return from a meeting and say “I agreed with James it’s £10 million PI” only for you to later find out that there has been a mix-up between the £10 million liability cap being offered and the amount of professional indemnity insurance (PII) to be maintained under the contract.

Continue reading

REUTERS | Carlos Barria

When I read Edwards-Stuart J’s judgment in Hyder v Carillion, two things struck me:

  • The court saying that it is the decision of the adjudicator that is binding, not his reasoning.
  • The question an adjudicator should ask himself as to whether he should share or put his approach or interpretation to the parties?

This post considers the first point. I’ll save the second, “walking a tightrope” point, for another day. Continue reading

Share this post on: