Monthly Archives: August 2012

REUTERS | Mike Blake

The more cynical amongst us may think that the growing frequency of unavailability deductions on PFI/PPP projects is a sure sign that employers are going the extra mile to claw back the cost of PPP or PFI projects.

However, in their eagerness to recoup some costs, employers, sponsors or authorities can (and often do) ignore the contractual provisions that must be satisfied before establishing any entitlement to levy unavailability deductions.

Continue reading

REUTERS | Tobias Schwarz

A few weeks ago I gave you some of my practical tips for making or defending extension of time claims in adjudication. This week I thought I’d give you some practical tips concerning money claims, by which I mean, claims for loss and expense or damages.

I appreciate that it might appear that I’m “teaching grandmother to suck eggs”, but I make no apologies because we can all do with a refresher of the basics at times. I know I certainly can. Indeed, I suspect that a surprising amount of us have a Nutshells or equivalent hidden away in the desk drawer and refer to it in times of need. Alternatively, we can just look at PLC! Continue reading

REUTERS | Kim Hong-Ji

Last week I looked at some current trends in ICC arbitration. I highlighted some of the parties’ concerns, in particular the time and expense of pursuing arbitration.

This week, my focus is on the International Chamber of Commerce’s (ICC) response: in particular, its new arbitration rules (the 2012 ICC Rules).

Continue reading

REUTERS | Jason Lee

I had a call from a client (I’ll call him “Mr D”) not so long ago. Mr D was developing a scheme behind an existing façade, which the lovers of early 20th-century architecture at planning control had insisted needed to be retained.

Mr D’s contractor therefore had to construct various brackets and supports during excavation in order to prevent the collapse of the existing façade while he built the permanent structures. Due to the delicate nature of this task and the fact that Mr D’s site was surrounded by some potentially litigious neighbours, Mr D was keen to ensure that his structural engineer acted as a second pair of eyes looking over the contractor’s temporary works and their design. Continue reading

Share this post on: