The Court of Appeal’s decision earlier this year in Hunt and others v Optima (Cambridge) Ltd and others set me thinking about completion certificates in the context of construction projects generally. Continue reading
REUTERS | Edgar Su
REUTERS | Toby Melville
December 9, 2014
Lack of pay less notice meant “open and shut” adjudication case
I have to confess to having a small chuckle to myself when I read Edwards-Stuart J’s comments in Harding v Paice about how the third adjudication appeared to be “a model of how an adjudication should not be conducted”. This didn’t seem to be a reflection of the adjudicator, who the judge had “considerable sympathy for”, but how the referring party had conducted itself. For example, the judgment refers to a considerable volume of material put before the adjudicator, hundreds of pages of authorities, electronic copies provided when the adjudicator wanted hard copies and a refusal to extend the 28 days to 42 days because the referring party thought it had an “open and shut matter” (which the adjudicator clearly did not agree with). I’m sure many of us will share the judge’s sympathy for the adjudicator, as we’ve all been there in one way or another.
However, aside from procedural issues, the stand out issue for me is that this judgment demonstrates how the new payment regime has affected adjudication. Continue reading
REUTERS | Toby Melville
December 8, 2014
Have you lost interest? Right to recover interest for late payment
A claim for interest will often be the first remedy sought in the event of late payment. As such, it is an issue close to the hearts of contracting parties. It is also often an area of confusion in the Gulf region given the general prohibition on the levying of interest under Islamic Sharia law, the underlying framework of the Gulf legal system.
In this final part of a three-part blog series, considering some key issues in the context of the Qatari and UAE construction markets, we look at how interest is dealt with under UAE and Qatari law. We have previously looked at liquidated damages (LDs) and time bars. Continue reading
REUTERS | Lisi Niesner
Edwards-Stuart J has recently held that main contract adjudication provisions were not incorporated into a sub-contract. As a result, the appointed adjudicator had jurisdiction to deal with the dispute over the non-payment of Inviron’s application for £643,283.
Imtech Inviron v Loppingdale Plant
Loppingdale was appointed under a framework agreement to carry out various infrastructure works at Stansted Airport. It sub-contracted certain M&E works to Inviron.
A dispute arose as to payment under an interim application, which was referred to adjudication. Inviron obtained a decision in its favour from an adjudicator appointed by TECBAR, Mr Ben Sareen, for more than £600,000. Loppingdale refused to pay, contending that the adjudicator had not been properly appointed. Continue reading
REUTERS | Tobias Schwarz
December 5, 2014
Adjudicating under a RIBA or JCT domestic building contract
When advising on a home project there has never been a “right” answer to the question of which contract to choose. As is so often the case, the choice of contract should be governed by the needs of the parties and the project.
To date, domestic parties have had to look to the JCT’s home owner/occupier contracts or those produced by bodies like the Federation of Master Builders (FMB). Alternatively, they have relied on the JCT’s Minor Works Building Contract (or even more sophisticated contracts from the JCT suite).
Last month, RIBA published two new contracts, the Concise Building Contract 2014 and the Domestic Building Contract 2014. As the titles imply, the first is for simple commercial building work (and is unsuitable for non-commercial work, such as work done to someone’s home). In contrast, the second is suitable for domestic work including “renovations, extensions, maintenance and new buildings”, but is unsuitable for commercial works.
So, with a new domestic contract in the market, are things about to change and, if they do, what does it mean for those parties that end up in a dispute with their builder?
REUTERS | Srdjan Zivulovic
December 3, 2014
Termination for convenience and the “minimum performance rule”
Termination for convenience clauses are a common feature of modern commercial contracts. Terminating a contract in this way has the advantage of avoiding a default-based confrontation. It is also traditionally considered a more expensive way to terminate: parties invoking this type of clause will expect to pay an element of lost profit to the contractor or supplier. However, this will not always be the case, as Comau UK Ltd v Lotus Lightweight Structures illustrates. Continue reading
REUTERS | Jose Manuel Ribeiro
December 2, 2014
Melville Dundas revisited
We have removed the content of this post as the judgment it referred to was heard in private and should not have appeared on BAILII.
REUTERS | Mike Blake
December 2, 2014
How much time have you got? Enforcing contractual notice provisions
This is the second of a three-part blog series in which we consider some key contractual issues in the context of the Qatari and UAE construction markets.
In our first blog, we looked at the principle of freedom to contract as a matter of UAE and Qatari law in the context of liquidated damages (LDs). You might expect this principle would extend to allowing parties to a construction contract to agree a contract term that barred recovery of additional time and money, except where strict notice procedures are followed. This is not necessarily the case: a court or tribunal will not always uphold and enforce such a term, often referred to as a “time bar”. In this article we explore whether time bars may be considered contrary to the provisions of the UAE and Qatari Civil Codes. Continue reading
REUTERS | Ali Jarekji
November 28, 2014
November 2014 digest: autumn, ANBs in adjudication and “plebgate”
John Clare, Remembrances:
“Summer’s pleasures they are gone like to visions everyone, and the cloudy days of autumn and of winter cometh on.
I tried to call them back but unbidden they are gone, far away from heart and eye and forever far away.”
The weather is always close to our hearts and no more so than at this time of year, with the falling leaves and endless grey skies. Like last year, November 2014 has been mild and wet, with overnight frosts just starting to feature in the forecasts. Surely it is only a matter of time before we get some snow but, before that winter storm arrives, we’ve been witnessing a storm in the adjudication world.
It isn’t often that an adjudication enforcement case comes along and gets everyone excited. However, that is precisely what Ramsey J’s judgment in Eurocom v Siemens has done. Continue reading
REUTERS | Kim Hong-Ji
In Harding v Paice, Edwards-Stuart J has considered the meaning of paragraph 9(2) in Part 1 of the Scheme for Construction Contracts 1998.
Paragraph 9(2) provides that:
“An adjudicator must resign when the dispute is the same or substantially the same as the one which has previously been referred to adjudication and a decision has been taken in that adjudication.”
Whether dispute A is the same as dispute B is a question of fact and degree (Dyson LJ in Quietfield v Vascroft Contractors Ltd). In applying this test it is necessary to consider the terms, scope and extent of the dispute referred and the first adjudicator’s decision, and to ask whether the one dispute is the same or substantially the same as the other. Continue reading
