John Clare, Remembrances:
“Summers pleasures they are gone like to visions every one, and the cloudy days of autumn and of winter cometh on.”
As November ends, so does autumn. It may mean the start of winter, but it also means it is time for the government’s Autumn Statement. This year, George Osborne said he was going to “rebuild Britain”, which may be good news for the construction industry. Continue reading
Since the consequences of failing to serve a valid and timely payment notice or pay less notice can be severe (see ISG Construction Ltd v Seevic College), it perhaps should come as no surprise that in recent cases, there has been increasing attention on the validity of the application for payment because, without this, there can be no “notified sum” due to the contractor and, therefore, no requirement to serve a payment or pay less notice.
Three recent TCC decisions show that the court requires applications for payment to be clear and unambiguous. A requirement which may, in the future, be more strictly applied to employer’s notices. Continue reading
This is the second of a series of quarterly blog posts on the subject of alliance contracting and looks at the painshare and gainshare provisions that are key to a number of alliancing contracts. It examines the payment principles under an alliance contract, looking at the various factors that must be taken into account in agreeing these, such as the respective positions of each party, how these can be aligned and how service providers can be sufficiently incentivised. Continue reading
Earlier this week I participated in Practical Law’s breakfast roundtable, Key clauses in offshore construction. The roundtable was led by Lucy Garrett and Calum Lamont, barristers at Keating Chambers.
As I said when I wrote about the breakfast roundtable on mediation, while Chatham House rules do not permit me to reveal all that was said, what I can tell you is how enjoyable the session was. Continue reading
Fraser J is the latest High Court judge appointed to the TCC. His judgment in Science and Technology Facilities Council v MW High Tech Projects UK Ltd was one of the first that he handed down and the first one that I have written about.
It is good to see a fresh face in the TCC. With the retirement of both Ramsey J and Akenhead J, he is a much needed addition to the judgely fold. While some solicitors will be disappointed to have seen him move up to the bench (because they have lost an outstanding advocate), no doubt he’ll be an asset to it. Continue reading
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) is now in force. This is a significant piece of legislation for consumers and retailers alike, but how will it impact on construction contracts? Traders involved with domestic work for individuals will need to carefully consider the new rules as they may not be limited to small scale domestic projects. Continue reading
The meaning of construction operations (in section 105(1)) and the exceptions (under section 105(2)) are one of the more difficult areas of the Construction Act 1996 to get to grips with. We may know that they are the result of lobbying back in the 1990’s, but I’ve never really understood the rationale for them and it doesn’t make it any easier for those of us at the coal face of implementing the Act.
The latest power station steelwork to be the subject of argument under 105(2) came before Stuart-Smith J earlier this year in Severfield v Duro. Continue reading
This post considers the implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling on penalty clauses in Cavendish Square Holding BV v El Makdessi and ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis but first, the background to the penalty rule. Continue reading
Given the current climate created by declining oil prices, more pressure is being placed on government budgets in the Middle East. This month a new PPP law, specifically drafted to regulate partnerships between the public and private sectors in the delivery of projects, is due to come into force in Dubai. Could this be the start of the PPP as a viable project delivery model for costly government projects in the Middle East? Continue reading
An employer must be allowed to decide what changes are made to the contract scope and therefore a contract will stipulate that variations are to be expressly instructed. Equally, unexpected difficulties in building the defined works may arise, which means that the scope has to be altered simply in order to complete the project. If the contractor cannot get formal approval for such “necessary” changes then the danger arises that it will have to proceed “at risk”. In other words, the employer may refuse to give a formal instruction, which is the condition precedent to payment under the contract.
One way of avoiding this problem is to provide that when certain specified events occur that necessitate a change to the scope, a variation is deemed to have been automatically triggered, without the need for the employer to give a formal instruction. Continue reading
