According to Edwards-Stuart J in the TCC, it may be when there is an implied term.
In what might have been an unremarkable situation, Edwards-Stuart J has given what some would describe as a remarkable judgment. I refer to Manor Asset Ltd v Demolition Services Ltd, as discussed by John Hughes-D’Aeth last week. Continue reading
Most of the judgments that Matt and I comment on in this blog come from the TCC but, occasionally, the Court of Appeal graces us with an adjudication related judgment. It is one such judgment that I want to talk about this week: Mr & Mrs Brown v Complete Building Solutions Ltd. The judgment is quite concise, so I will endeavour to do the same (famous last words!). Continue reading
Part 36 offers. Perhaps not a topic that stokes a fire in your belly or gets you out of bed in the morning.
However, I encourage you to spare a few minutes and plough on. Although I cannot promise you scandal, intrigue or even excitement, a recent extension in the law concerning Part 36 offers is nonetheless worthy of your attention. In the course of this blog, I will explain how this change allows parties greater flexibility in making such offers as well as touching on some other general considerations to bear in mind when utilising Part 36. Continue reading
Most construction contracts will try to ensure that variation instructions are given in writing. But laying down a hard and fast rule can be difficult since employers often want the flexibility to give oral instructions in certain situations. As a result, construction contracts will often fudge the position, such that it can be unclear whether a variation can be instructed orally. This is especially the case when the contract incorporates a confirmation of verbal instruction (CVI) procedure.
If an employer refuses to pay for a variation because there is no written instruction, the contractor needs to review carefully the contract to establish precisely what is required for a variation and whether an oral instruction is sufficient. Continue reading
They say that hard cases make bad law, and Manor Asset Ltd v Demolition Services Ltd is certainly a hard case. The nice folks at Practical Law Construction knew that I would have an opinion on it (they know me too well!) and have asked me to share my thoughts with you. I know that the Practical Law Construction team is divided on the subject, so you’ll be in good company if you disagree with my (tentative) conclusion. Continue reading
So, now we all know that you can’t refer more than one dispute to the same adjudicator at the same time without the parties’ consent. Perhaps we always knew this, but am I alone in thinking that section 108 of the Construction Act 1996 and paragraph 8(1) of the Scheme for Construction Contracts 1998 were really referring to multiple disputes in the same adjudication and not multiple disputes in different adjudications?
Well, whether I was alone or not (and I’m sure those of you that disagree will be quick to point it out to me), we now have clarity on the point from Coulson J, following his judgment in Deluxe Art & Theme Ltd v Beck Interiors Ltd. Continue reading
