In the second blog in our series looking at common questions we receive on the roll out of EV infrastructure, we focus on two queries we regularly see in the context of landlord and tenant relations. Continue reading
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/22c4c/22c4c4255b62abca271f4b8238538b30cc00e250" alt=""
EV charging infrastructure – landlord and tenant issues
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/70ea2/70ea201bfece98f498e671e094680a4bdb239cd5" alt=""
In my view, this is an interesting question and, until earlier this month, not one we’d seen addressed in the law reports before (at least, not as far as I recall). Without cheating and looking at the judgment in Bexheat Ltd v Essex Services Group Ltd, I wonder how many of you would answer the question yes and how many would answer no. Answers on a postcard please! Continue reading
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/049bf/049bfb53426d2a77536d98d10f52cdc2bedddbd8" alt=""
EV charging infrastructure – progress and challenges
The EV infrastructure roll out to meet the government’s 2030 target of ending sales of all new petrol and diesel cars is well underway with the private sector rolling out digital charging “at pace”.
At the end of March, the government published plans to supercharge progress (more on this below) with promises to do more to encourage private investment so activity in what is already a thriving sector looks likely to intensify.
With this is mind, we thought it would be interesting to look at some common queries we receive from clients already active in this sector.
The questions span a range of legal disciplines and so this week, in the first of our blogs on this topic, we’ll start by focusing on some of the general questions we are asked.
In the next blogs in the series, we will look at questions that regularly come up in the context of landlord and tenant relations, construction, projects and planning. Continue reading
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f6829/f6829c2d47239c09d8b4960c77f837f476f1d567" alt=""
The keen-eyed among you will note that this is the third post in a row where I have talked about adjudication enforcement cases in which natural justice issues have arisen either directly or indirectly.
I promise that I haven’t got some strange fetish for such matters. Nor do I think that such challenges are necessarily de rigueur amongst aggrieved parties. Rather, I think it’s just that, like buses, we don’t get any cases for a while that deal with a point (here that is natural justice), and then three come along at once.
In the finale to this trilogy of posts, I want to discuss the very interesting Scottish case of Van Oord UK Ltd v Dragados UK Ltd. Lord Braid’s judgment makes for a jolly good read because, not only is it very well written and refreshingly brief, but it also concerns one of the cornerstones of the natural justice challenge war chest, namely what happens when the adjudicator reaches their decision on a basis not canvassed with the parties. The origins of such challenges can be traced back 20 years (which is positively ancient when it comes to adjudication jurisprudence) to cases such as Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd v Lambeth LBC. Continue reading
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/348dd/348dd2a392c47a0a44feb744b2dba29d3219e045" alt=""
While defendants in adjudication enforcement proceedings often assert jurisdictional defences as a matter of course, Eyre J’s judgement in BraveJoin Co Ltd v Prosperity Moseley Street Ltd is a reminder that – in practical terms – they will rarely succeed, particularly where they rely on the absence of a crystallised dispute. Continue reading
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/32e82/32e829e2bf98e549e72e4dc8c61426b05f55e4a2" alt=""
Out now – episode 9 of The Construction Briefing podcast
Episode 9 of The Construction Briefing is now available.
This episode covers the latest building safety developments, including removal of the role of Building Safety Manager, a further update to Form EWS1 and agreements reached on who will pay for remediation works.
Michelle and Yassir also look at two Court of Appeal judgments addressing the embargo that applies to reserved court judgments:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7976c/7976cef96f8fdf724f80f8ba42af838fe9a9ed45" alt=""
JCT’s insolvency payment regime – how does it work?
The case of Levi Solicitors LLP v Wilson and another considered the impact of contractor insolvency on debts owed to an employer under a JCT contract.
Significantly, the court helpfully clarified how the payment regime under JCT contracts operated in the context of insolvency.
This blog takes a closer look at the case. Continue reading