Monthly Archives: December 2012

REUTERS | David Mdzinarishvili
December 31, 2012

December 2012 digest: reflecting on a year gone by

Band Aid’s, Do they know it’s Christmas time:

“And in our world of plenty, we can spread a smile of joy!
Throw your arms around the world at Christmas time.”

The holiday period is almost upon us, and so is a period of reflection, not only for the events in December, but for the rest of the year too. While we’ve published a list of key construction and engineering cases from the last six months, the dispute team has set out its top ten practical tips of the year. If you have a few spare minutes, why not take our Christmas quiz and see whether you’ve been keeping up-to-date. Continue reading →

REUTERS | Mike Blake
December 11, 2012

To procure or to arrange?

An agreement higher up the contractual chain than a building contract (such as a development agreement or an agreement for lease) can adopt a variety of terms to describe the developer’s or landlord’s main obligation in relation to the works. For example, it could be to “carry out” the works or to “procure” them or, simply, to “arrange for the carrying out” of them. The difference between such terminology can be crucial, especially where the agreement doesn’t spell out the parties’ specific obligations on matters such as design, materials and workmanship.

Continue reading →

REUTERS | Eric Thayer
December 11, 2012

Experts under the spotlight again

A few weeks ago, I wrote about the role of expert witnesses under the Dubai’s civil code. Matt has also discussed experts recently, looking at the difficulties an expert may face, depending on his client and the nature of the dispute.

Given the importance of expert evidence in construction disputes and the sheer number of people who must be acting as an expert at any one time, it should come as no surprise to see the topic cropping up again. This time, I was intrigued by what may be expected of the role of an “appraiser” in Turville v Chartis, but not surprised to see some of the judge’s comments in Melhuish v Hurden.

If you are not familiar with these cases, here’s a brief recap. Continue reading →

REUTERS | Mike Segar
December 11, 2012

E-mail arrangements over Christmas and the new year

Frosty the Snowman:

“Frosty the snowman was a jolly happy soul
With a corncob pipe and a button nose
and two eyes made out of coal.”

Following business as usual this week, PLC Construction will send its last e-mail of 2012 next week, to arrive in your inbox on Thursday 20 December 2012. We are then taking a break until the new year.

The first e-mail of 2013 will be sent to arrive in your inbox on Thursday 3 January 2013. This e-mail will include reports of all developments since 20 December 2012.

Merry Christmas and a happy new year.

REUTERS | Ina Fassbender
December 5, 2012

Keeping the lights on?

While most of us were caught up in the wall-to-wall coverage of the Leveson report last Thursday, other significant announcements were being made in Westminster.

The Energy Secretary, Ed Davey, made a statement on the publication of the Energy Bill 2012, which is the product of months of industry-wide dialogue and debate on how we can keep the lights on while ensuring a low-carbon economy. Continue reading →

REUTERS | Alex Domanski
December 4, 2012

Adjudicator can’t change his mind in his later decision

Back in September, I wrote about set-off against an adjudicator’s decision following two TCC judgments: Squibb Group v Vertase FLI Ltd and Beck Interiors v Classic.

It seems the parties in the first case are still arguing over time and money, and have been back before the court (Vertase FLI Ltd v Squibb Group). This time the question for Edwards-Stuart J to address was whether the adjudicator decided the same issue in the second adjudication as he’d decided in the first adjudication. If he had, he’d lack jurisdiction and his decision would be unenforceable. Continue reading →

Share this post on: