Keen readers of this column will recall my bafflement at the Court of Appeal’s decision in Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank. An (as it seemed) routine call on an advance payment bond was denied on the basis of one word – “such“. The word had been carelessly inserted into a clause of the bond, presumably with little thought on either side as to its meaning and effect. Adopting the restrained and temperate language that is my hallmark on such occasions, I described it as “ludicrous” and defying business common sense. I even evoked the most damming insult of all – “with respect”. I concluded by wondering if the Supreme Court would be allowed the last word on the subject.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/05b09/05b09f9c254abefab28716a163a2a2ccd968c68e" alt=""
Common sense prevails in the Supreme Court: Rainy Sky
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/82ee4/82ee4bf8c1e5ff6e2afb003eed7a45f553442881" alt=""
Buying a property? Don’t forget about the Party Wall Act 1996
When buying a property, the Commercial Property Standard Enquiries (CPSE.1) (enquiries 1.3 and 2) provide standard form, specific enquiries about party walls. However, those enquiries only ask about breaches of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 (PWA 1996) relating to party structures on the boundary of the site, and to provide copies of any notices, awards and agreements that might exist in connection with those party structures. The answers to those enquiries will not provide any illumination as to works yet to be carried out, or liabilities and expenses that are still to accrue following a sale of the land.
If the PWA 1996 may apply to works that have been or are in the process of being carried out (or are planned), what should a buyer be looking out for? Continue reading
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/93675/93675fcee73a339278b518c0721000e2d4f8fcfe" alt=""
Is it fair that adjudicators are paid even when we get it wrong?
I’m sure there will be a few people out that suggesting that “it’s not fair” that adjudicators should get paid, even if they screw up when making their decision, leaving the parties with something that is unenforceable and, frankly, worthless. I am of course talking about Akenhead J’s judgment in Systech v PC Harrington.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e68fd/e68fd5c2a3dd87b0fa902d1a7dcae2ea01dd7a51" alt=""
The new first edition FIDIC sub-contract
Last month FIDIC published its official “First Edition” of “Conditions of Subcontract for Construction, Building and Engineering Works designed by the Employer” – the subcontract primarily intended to be used with the FIDIC Red Book and the harmonised MDB Conditions (the Pink Book).
As the “Test Edition” was launched almost 2 years ago (in December 2009), many will question whether this is really news at all. But the “First Edition” has made a number of changes to the Test Edition and some of these raise interesting questions…
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d7551/d7551f4b6a7055598c5c397403e5fcabf21cf480" alt=""
Becoming an expert at selecting your expert
Construction disputes often throw up complex technical issues that need to be resolved by reference to expert evidence. Selecting an appropriate expert in any dispute can be a difficult task. There have been a few recent changes in the law surrounding the appointment of experts, which may impact upon you when you are next faced with the task of selecting an expert in a dispute.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5dcee/5dcee8fe323bb9a958e674ff13bea14a90ea41d2" alt=""
Bias comes in all shapes and forms
My last post was all about unconscious bias, derived from an alleged relationship between the arbitrator and party representatives. It got me thinking about other types of bias that may be alleged, especially in adjudication where you have a modest number of companies adjudicating, with an even smaller number of party representatives and adjudicators.