Posts from Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP

Prospective analysis of compensation events under NEC: shutting one’s eyes and groping in the dark?

The NEC contract is built on the spirit of mutual trust and co-operation. One area in which this plays out is in the context of applications for an extension of time or a change in the prices by a contractor. The project manager is required to assess these applications on a prospective or forecasted basis, … Continue reading Prospective analysis of compensation events under NEC: shutting one’s eyes and groping in the dark?

The avalanche effect: key issues in modular building

Increasingly, our clients are requesting that we incorporate provisions for modular building techniques into their construction contracts. There seems to be a real trend for including at least some aspects of “modular” into development and other projects. It is open to debate whether this is driven by improvements in design and adaptability of modular building … Continue reading The avalanche effect: key issues in modular building

The fine line between design and implementation: scope of NEC Option X15

Last year, I blogged on the first instance decision of the Scottish courts in SSE Generation Ltd v Hochtief Solutions AG and another. That decision has been overturned by the Inner House, Court of Session (the Scottish equivalent of the Court of Appeal) in an important judgment that sheds light on how the English courts might … Continue reading The fine line between design and implementation: scope of NEC Option X15

Co-insurance and subrogation rights revisited (again!)

My colleague, Natalie Wardle, commented on the Supreme Court’s decision in Gard Marine and Energy Ltd v China National Chartering Company Ltd in her May 2017 blog. As she noted, the judgments (and the 3:2 majority verdict) left a number of questions unanswered. Two of these were: What is the strength of the implied term that … Continue reading Co-insurance and subrogation rights revisited (again!)

An unplanned surprise: Implied planning obligations – Clin v Walter Lilly

Recently, in the course of reviewing a proposed building contract for an employer, I had cause to consider how responsibility for obtaining planning consents had been addressed. Or rather, whether it had been addressed at all. Jean-François Clin v Walter Lilly & Co Ltd is a forceful reminder to effectively deal with this issue. The Court … Continue reading An unplanned surprise: Implied planning obligations – Clin v Walter Lilly

The unchartered Grove: smash and grab practice following Grove v S&T

Coulson J’s decision in Grove Developments Ltd v S&T (UK) Ltd has triggered a great deal of commentary, including Jonathan Cope’s post, which I read with great interest. It got me thinking about what strategies an employer or contractor might adopt to counter a smash and grab adjudication, either pre-emptively or after the referral has landed.