In the early ’80’s, Soft Cell sang Say hello, wave goodbye. It probably isn’t as well known as the dance floor-filler that is Tainted love, but it is a song that came to mind when I read the Court of Appeal’s judgment in A & V Building Solutions Ltd v J & B Hopkins Ltd.
If you are wondering why, it is because the court held that J & B Hopkins (JBH) had waived goodbye to any right to challenge the validity of A & V Building Solutions’ (AVB) payment application. Continue reading
A key concept introduced by Part 4 of the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA 2022) is the Accountable Person (AP). Required in relation to every occupied higher-risk building, the AP is the “dutyholder” who has responsibility for the fire and structural safety of the building during occupation.
Part 4 provides an overarching skeleton framework for identifying the AP and the duties they will be required to undertake. However, much of the detail of Part 4 remains to be filled out by secondary legislation, the content of which will largely depend on the government’s response to the consultation on the new safety regime for occupied higher-risk buildings (Consultation). While the Consultation itself gives a sense of how the AP regime will operate it is of course no substitute for the actual legislation. Continue reading
I can’t say that I recall Dyson LJ’s judgment in Connex South Eastern Ltd v MJ Building Services Group being handed down back in 2005 but I do know it is the case that told us that the phrase “at any time” means exactly that. It’s like Ronseal’s famous phrase, “Does exactly what it says on the tin”. With the Court of Appeal giving the words their literal and ordinary meaning, it was plain speaking at its best!
It has also meant that for as long as I can remember, we have all assumed that there is no time limit on when a party can start an adjudication. (In Connex, the court was dealing with a situation where the notice of adjudication was issued after practical completion and after repudiation of the contract.) Consequently, the only limitations (if there are any) are the ones we find in the Limitation Act 1980, which doesn’t prevent a party from starting an adjudication but may provide the responding party with a defence (if taken), which means the adjudicator’s decision will be in their favour. (The same applies in court proceedings and, if the defence is successful, the claim may be struck out.)
If this is all so well-established, you might wonder why I’m bothering to mention it. The answer is, because of HHJ Russen KC’s judgment in LJR Interiors Ltd v Cooper Construction Ltd, which he handed down last month. Continue reading
We have published episode 19 of The Construction Briefing podcast featuring the Practical Law Construction editorial team.
This month, Michelle and Yassir discuss:
Finally, they refer to the Equal Representation in Adjudication Pledge, which launches later this month and aims to increase the number of female adjudicators.
The Construction Briefing is an alternative way of learning about key developments in construction law, with our editorial team discussing some of the wider issues those developments raise.
You can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts (like Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts and Spotify), enabling you to download and listen to all episodes on the go on your phone. Alternatively, you can use our audio and video RSS feed to access the latest edition as soon as it is published.
I advise many clients involved in construction projects who are on the cusp of a dispute. While they take legal advice on the merits of their position, my clients usually continue to seek to reach an amicable solution with their counterparty through direct negotiation as well as continuing to liaise on a day to day basis to get the job finished.
In this context, my clients regularly ask, “Should my email be without prejudice?”
Although the law in this area is relatively settled, the question continues to throw up difficulties. I have been involved with several cases where one party has attempted to put material before a judge or adjudicator that the other side says is inadmissible because it was made without prejudice.
The recent Privy Council case of A&A v Petroleum Co of Trinidad & Tobago sheds some light on this perennial problem. Continue reading
Some years ago I wrote a number of blogs about the long-running legal battle between Gary Paice and Kim Springall (property developers) and MJ Harding (the building contractor). That really was the case that kept on giving, and I’m not sure we’ve had two parties provide such rich blog pickings since.
However, I think there might be a favourite to take this most coveted of crowns in the form of the disputes between Sudlows Ltd (the contractor) and Global Switch Estates 1 Ltd (the employer). Although we are only on the second reported TCC enforcement judgment (some of you may recall I wrote about the last one in January 2021), they have had six adjudications and, given that it is clear from the latest judgment handed-down by Waksman J in December 2022 that the parties are still some £16.5 million apart, I suspect we may see more of them in the future.
I appreciate that many of you may already be aware of this very well written judgment, and some commentators are clearly of the view that it could have a significant impact on serial adjudications.
But is that really the case or does the judgment turn on its facts? I want to explore that, and consider what lessons adjudicators in particular can take from this judgment. Continue reading
