REUTERS | Vasily Fedosenko

November 2015 digest: Autumn Statement, penalties rule and dogs

John Clare, Remembrances:

“Summers pleasures they are gone like to visions every one, and the cloudy days of autumn and of winter cometh on.”

As November ends, so does autumn. It may mean the start of winter, but it also means it is time for the government’s Autumn Statement. This year, George Osborne said he was going to “rebuild Britain”, which may be good news for the construction industry.

In adjudication, the TCC considered whether:

Elsewhere, Jonathan Cope considered the impact that paying an adjudicator’s fees has on jurisdictional challenges and Matt Molloy discussed whether an adjudicator breached natural justice by refusing a site visit.

The courts were busy during November, with the:

Comment this month included:

On the public procurement front, we saw new procurement thresholds, a policy review, October’s case digest, new standard forms for procurements, some training slides for those working in utilities and a policy note on procuring steel. Andrew Millross considered publishing procurement documents.

In other news, the colour of court seals has changedthe NBS published its construction contracts survey, Ofgem gave guidance on EPC contracts, the government announced that Infrastructure UK and the Major Projects Authority will merge, a new energy policy, plans to privatise the GIB and new sentencing guidelines for manslaugher and health and safety breaches were published.

And finally, the Chancery Division has confirmed that (in case anyone was in any doubt), a dog cannot be a claimant in court proceedings. This meant the claims by Goldie and Diamond (aged 18 months and two years respectively) were struck out:

“I also cannot see how a dog could give instructions for a claim to be brought on its behalf or be liable for any orders made against it. There are a whole host of other reasons why proceedings by dogs must be void…”

Practical Law Monthly digest

Share this post on: