The Supreme Court has handed down judgment in the cases of Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi and ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. It was not just the construction sector that waited patiently and speculated cautiously as to what the court would do with the rule against penalties. Would it confirm the current rule, abolish it, extend it, restrict its scope, or change the formulation? The prospects of obtaining a simple clear answer from the court were not promising: two cases with very different factual circumstances were heard together, there were seven judges on the bench, and the case was complicated by recent changes to the law in Australia and the Consumers’ Association “intervening” in the court proceedings. Continue reading
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fb572/fb5722304f38a484e5f630985a838074f5921683" alt=""
Out of chaos arises order: Supreme Court confirms the rule against penalties in El Makdessi and ParkingEye appeals
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f25e0/f25e07470d285d18054a76ebe8f28283e79ce16c" alt=""
A new dawn for domestic construction and engineering arbitration?
Last week saw the launch of RICS’ new construction and engineering arbitration service. Now, before I go any further, I should declare an interest. I chaired the working party responsible for developing the service, so I acknowledge that I may be somewhat biased.
Why bother?
A question I have been asked on a number of occasions is why is RICS attempting to revitalise domestic construction and engineering arbitration in the UK? Continue reading
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/80014/8001428da415ff55c6626eef880e41938508f51e" alt=""
Construction and engineering disputes: spoilt for choice
Never before have there been so many ways to resolve construction and engineering disputes quickly and flexibly in England and Wales. The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) is piloting two speedier procedures and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) has recently launched two quicker arbitration procedures, any of which could challenge the supremacy of adjudication as the favoured dispute resolution forum for construction and engineering disputes. Continue reading
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/cadd5/cadd5be8f1401957792874239bc9fac778085fe0" alt=""
No site visit, no breach of rules of natural justice
A few weeks ago I looked at the width of an adjudicator’s discretion to determine a dispute, as outlined by Coulson J in Wycombe v Demolition v Topevent. That judgment also raised a number of other issues, which I thought I’d share with you. Continue reading