Monthly Archives: December 2020

REUTERS | Russell Cheyne

NEC4: 2020 amendments

NEC4 was published in 2017. The first set of amendments were published in January 2019 and now, in the space of three years, we have the second set, published in October. Most standard forms do not publish updates so prolifically and (certainly for this year with all its changes) you could argue more’s the pity.

Standard form updates to reflect legal developments are almost always welcome – it saves the parties from having to wield the red pen, helps standardise market approach to certain issues and reduces the likelihood of dispute.

But as for other types of update – well, it depends. NEC say that the 2020 update is based on feedback from users and industry experts that “have provided many constructive suggestions as to how the contracts could be further enhanced… “.  The problem with this of course is that whether you think the changes suggested are a good idea or indeed of any relevance to how you use the forms, will depend on who you are in the contractual equation and what type of project you use the NEC form for.

Below we take a closer look at some of the key changes. Continue reading

REUTERS | Dominic Ebenbichler

Writing on this blog almost exactly four years ago, David Pliener noted a potentially interesting change in the TCC’s approach to enforcing adjudicators’ decisions. In the case of Ground Developments Ltd v FCC Construction, Fraser J signalled that, perhaps, a claimant applying for summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator’s decision might not need to meet the summary judgment test after all.

Now that Ground Developments has had time to mature, it might be a good time to check in and see how things have gone since. Has Fraser J’s judgment heralded a brave new world? Continue reading

REUTERS | Kevin Lamarque

Christmas is on the horizon. It’s necessary, therefore, to ask who’s been naughty and who’s been nice – and how better to do that than by reflecting on the courts’ approach to fraud in adjudications?

In March of this year, the Court of Appeal was faced with a relatively rare type of case: one involving allegations of fraud in the context of adjudication proceedings. As Coulson LJ commented in PBS Energo AS v Bester Generacion UK Ltd, the case provided an opportunity to address the interface between the “pay now, argue later” philosophy inherent in construction adjudication and allegations of fraud raised on enforcement applications. Continue reading

REUTERS | Max Whittaker

After over a year of waiting, the Supreme Court finally handed-down judgment in Halliburton Company v Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd on 27 November 2020.

I wrote about the Court of Appeal’s judgment back in May 2018, and had forgotten that we were still awaiting the Supreme Court’s judgment until I saw various excited posts on LinkedIn. In the hours and days following the judgment there were posts of a different variety, namely legal updates on the judgment.

One of the advantages of waiting a couple of weeks before writing this blog is that I can read those posts and the thoughts of their esteemed authors, and overall my impression is that there is some disappointment among the international arbitration community that the Supreme Court has not gone far enough.

I want to talk briefly about some of the key issues, before going on to consider whether the case has any implications for UK adjudication. Continue reading

REUTERS | Alexander Kuznetsov

We have explored various topics as part of our intellectual property in construction series. To continue our discussion, we delve into some further thoughts on other common queries that we receive.

In this article we will look at:

  • Should a copyright licence be subject to the payment of fees?
  • What happens to a copyright licence on termination of the contract?
  • The impact of BIM on copyright licensing strategy.

Continue reading

Share this post on: