All posts by busbyd

REUTERS | Dominic Ebenbichler

A few years ago I wrote a post on whether adjudicators should act judicially, which looked at a talk by Lord Hamilton, who was then the president of the Scottish Court of Session. Lord Hamilton posited the question, “What has acting judicially to do with adjudicators?”, and I considered a number of the judicial values that he referred to, concluding that I hoped that all adjudicators had something of those values in mind whenever they accepted an adjudication appointment.

This post came to mind when I was reading the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Shaw v Grouby, where one of the defendants’ grounds of appeal was related to whether, because of the way the judge conducted the trial, it had been fair. It all boiled down to whether the judge’s interventions with witnesses meant he was “entering the arena”, which cast doubt over his objectivity and impartiality, and raised the prospect of the witnesses being unable to fairly put their evidence before the court. Continue reading

REUTERS | Stephen Hird

Abraham Lincoln:

“Let me not be understood as saying that there are no bad laws, nor that grievances may not arise for the redress of which no legal provisions have been made. I mean to say no such thing. But I do mean to say that although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still, while they continue in force, for the sake of example they should be religiously observed.”

The second half of 2014 has seen a number of important decisions affecting construction and engineering practitioners.  Continue reading

REUTERS | Pillar Lee

A recent TCC decision potentially increases the significance of obtaining an order for indemnity costs.

In Kellie v Wheatley & Lloyd Architects Ltd, the successful defendant sought to recover costs of over £166,000 despite having had its cost budget slashed from over £140,000 to £91,700. It sought to get around the effect of the cost management order (CMO) by seeking an order for indemnity costs. Continue reading

REUTERS | Fabrizio Bensch

In JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov and others, the claimant Kazakhstani Bank sought disclosure of documents concerning Mr Ablyazov’s assets from Mr Ablyazov’s current and former solicitors. It was agreed that these documents would attract legal professional privilege unless falling within the so-called “iniquity exception”.

As the judgment arguably widens the application of this exception, those acting in cases where there are allegations of fraud should be aware of its potential application, even where there is no suggestion that they were aware of the fraud.

The question that I therefore seek to consider in this blog is, when will legal professional privilege cease to apply in respect of documents passing between a lawyer and his client in circumstances where there is no allegation of wrongdoing or knowledge of iniquity on the part of the solicitor? Continue reading

REUTERS | Jason Lee

Hirtenstein v Hill Dickinson was a solicitors’ negligence case concerning the purchase of a luxury yacht. There have been a number of superyacht claims recently and they have often arisen as a result of late delivery. However, here one of the yacht’s engines was found to have been defective after sale. The issue was whether the purchaser’s solicitors should have advised the buyer that the seller should provide a personal guarantee as a condition of purchase.

While the court found that there had been negligence, it decided that it was not causative of the claimant’s decision to purchase the yacht without a personal guarantee. This meant that no loss was suffered. However, obiter, the court considered the principles of mitigation, and criticised the expert evidence in terms which are likely to be of wider interest. Continue reading

REUTERS | Eduardo Munoz

Even before the tougher approach to compliance with rules and practice directions recently adopted by the courts, limitation was the area of the law most likely to cause practitioners sleepless nights. The recent TCC decision in Lincolnshire County Council v Mouchel Business Services has re-enforced the courts’ lack of sympathy for claimants who fail to progress their claim expeditiously, and leave themselves vulnerable to ending up with no remedy at all as a result.

Continue reading

REUTERS | Herwig Prammer

What steps can an adjudicator take to safeguard a decision against a challenge for breach of the rules of natural justice? When will a court refuse to enforce an award on natural justice grounds? And should adjudicators even be under a duty to comply with the rules of natural justice?

These are all topics that were debated at the Adjudication Society’s annual conference last week. Continue reading

REUTERS | Esam Omran Al-Fetori

Practical Law Construction:

Before two-thousand-and-eight
You had a lot on your plate
On law to advise
Words blurring your eyes
What was to be your poor fate?

Now in two-thousand-thirteen
We’re five years old and still keen
All those tweaks to the Acts
Myriad cases and facts
We make sure that the best bits are seen

You may be surprised to hear that Practical Law Construction turned five this month and what a five years it has been, so happy birthday to us. Continue reading

REUTERS | Tobias Schwarz

Whether an adjudicator should be told about court declarations under CPR Part 8 during an adjudication was the jump out point for me when I read Edwards-Stuart J’s judgment in Glendalough Associated SA v Harris Calnan Construction Co Ltd. However, in contrast to the same judge’s decision in McGee v Gear last year, this time he did want part of the judgment communicated to the adjudicator before the adjudicator made his decision.

Continue reading

Share this post on: