Monthly Archives: June 2016

REUTERS | Kim Kyung-Hoon
June 29, 2016

June 2016 digest: Brexit

Charles de Gaulle, who vetoed British accession to the European Economic Community (EEC) for years, speaking in 1967:

“There is the Common Market, and for us, there is no problem. For you, there is one: you want to get in, and that is your problem.”

Almost fifty years on, how times have changed.

There was only one story this month. Prior to knowing the result, June seemed to be all about the remain and leave referendum campaigns. Since we woke up on 24 June to the news that the UK has voted to leave the European Union, there is still only one story.

It may be too soon to tell what impact this will have on the construction sector, one that is economically sensitive to the smallest of fluctuations in labour and the price of materials, and what the future holds for all the infrastructure projects in the pipeline. As Paul Morrell, the former Chief Construction Adviser, said to Construction News:

“As I walk down my street and people are having their domestic work done, all I hear are Eastern European voices. I just don’t know who’s going to build stuff now.”

Continue reading →

REUTERS | Leonhard Foeger
June 29, 2016

Concurrency and the SCL delay and disruption protocol: all together now

The Society of Construction Law (SCL) has recently issued a consultation draft of the second edition of its Delay and Disruption Protocol (Protocol). The object of the Protocol is to provide guidance on some of the common delay and disruption issues that arise on construction projects. Its stated purpose is to provide a means by which the parties can resolve these matters and avoid unnecessary disputes.

SCL has asked that feedback is given to feedback@eotprotocol.com by 8 July 2016 and if you have any interest in this topic I would encourage you to read it and give your views. Continue reading →

REUTERS |
June 28, 2016

Court of Appeal considers witness evidence and judicial bias

Almost a year ago I wrote about Peter Smith J’s recusal in Emerald Supplies v British Airways, which was made all the more interesting because it came about following the judge’s trip to Florence and his lost luggage experience on the return flight.

More recently Peter Smith J has been in the news because of a letter he sent to Blackstone Chambers following an article that appeared in the Times after the lost luggage affair. That article was written by Lord Pannick QC (who practices from Blackstone Chambers). The judge’s letter came into the public domain when another case he was presiding over ended up in the Court of Appeal (Harb v HRH Prince Abdul Aziz Bin Fahd Bin Abdul Aziz). (If you are interested, both the article and letter are reproduced in the judgment.)

It is not the judge’s letter writing activities that I want to concentrate on, but the Court of Appeal’s comments regarding witness evidence and judicial bias. Continue reading →

REUTERS | Carlos Barria
June 22, 2016

What has changed in JCT Minor Works 2016?

The JCT launched its 2016 edition of the Minor Works suite of contracts on 15 June 2016. This will be followed by the other JCT contract suites, which will be rolled out family by family. We understand that the next contracts to be published will be the short form of sub-contract and sub-subcontract (date to be confirmed), followed by the design and build (JCT DB) family in the autumn this year.

This post looks at some of the key changes in the minor works suite:

Many of these changes were expected, but others may take practitioners by surprise. The JCT has also taken the opportunity to tighten up some of the drafting, clarify certain provisions and update the guidance notes within the contracts. Continue reading →

REUTERS | Neil Hall
June 15, 2016

UK property market: a peek behind the fig leaf

As Brexit fears abound, the general consensus seems to be that the UK property market has peaked and is showing signs of cooling down. Some blame the spectre of a “leave” vote in the forthcoming referendum but predict a return to “business as usual” if the UK votes to remain. Others, with a focus on London, fear that the new Mayor and his views on housing and infrastructure could be an exacerbating factor. The glass half-empty crowd, and I count myself in this number, fear that Brexit may be a mere fig leaf masking the cyclical nature of the market and the ultimate inevitability of a downward cycle at some point in the not too distant future. Continue reading →

REUTERS | Beawiharta
June 14, 2016

Is expert shopping like parties manipulating the adjudicator appointment process?

Over the years, I’ve discussed many aspects of expert evidence, but I’m not sure I’ve covered expert shopping before. It was an issue that was before the TCC in Birmingham recently in Coyne v Morgan and another (t/a Hillfield Home Improvement) and it made me wonder if it is very different from when parties seek to manipulate the adjudicator nomination process. Continue reading →

REUTERS | Maxim Shemetov
June 8, 2016

The cost of switching experts

There are many reasons why a party might wish to change expert witness. For example, the litigation may have dragged on for some time and the expert may wish to be released, a fee (or other) dispute may have arisen and sometimes it becomes apparent that they are simply not up to the job.

The recent TCC decision in Coyne v Morgan and another t/a Hillfield Home Improvement provides a helpful summary of the principles that apply when a party seeks the court’s permission for such a change. Notably, it provides a timely reminder that the cost of that change may well be the disclosure of draft reports and/or other documents prepared by the first expert. Continue reading →

REUTERS | Michaela Rehle
June 7, 2016

“It’s adjudication Jim, but not as we know it”

I’ve borrowed this week’s title from Star Trek, although (according to the Google search I did), none of the original crew actually said “It’s life Jim, but not as we know it”, that comes from the song, Star Trekkin’. However, that is simply an aside and it doesn’t have a lot to do with the my topic for this week, the adjudication pilot for professional negligence claims (the pilot scheme).

“What’s that?”, I hear you ask. Well, until last week, it wasn’t something I was aware of either. Continue reading →

Share this post on: