We all know (from bitter experience) that conferences and seminars can vary in quality. You can come away from some feeling exhausted by the breadth and depth of what you’ve learnt (for example, the recent TeCSA Adjudication conference was excellent), but others have left me wondering why I bothered making the effort to go (but I’m not naming and shaming!). However, even at the latter you can expect to learn something during tea or lunch breaks.
In Cleightonhills v Bembridge Marine Ltd and others, Akenhead J held that a designer could not recover from those involved in a construction project down the line. On the facts, the third parties had not breached their duty of care in tort. The decision also includes some interesting discussions on obiter points, including whether there is a tortious duty to warn a third party of a dangerous design.
It’s that time of year again when we start looking forward and wondering what the next 12 months will hold. From all of the items that I wished for last year, one was to see West Ham promoted to the top flight. I was particularly pleased to see that one come to fruition, with the boys doing well under Big Sam.
As ever, here is my 2013 wish list. Continue reading
WE Gladstone, Speech on the Reform Bill:
“You cannot fight against the future. Time is on our side.”
As one year ends, so another year begins. We have been reflecting on events in 2012 and looking forward to 2013. Continue reading
Band Aid’s, Do they know it’s Christmas time:
“And in our world of plenty, we can spread a smile of joy!
Throw your arms around the world at Christmas time.”
The holiday period is almost upon us, and so is a period of reflection, not only for the events in December, but for the rest of the year too. While we’ve published a list of key construction and engineering cases from the last six months, the dispute team has set out its top ten practical tips of the year. If you have a few spare minutes, why not take our Christmas quiz and see whether you’ve been keeping up-to-date. Continue reading
Edmund Burke, Speech on concilliation with America, 1775:
“It is not, what a lawyer tells me I may do; but what humanity, reason, and justice, tell me I ought to do.”
The second half of 2012 has seen a number of important decisions affecting construction and engineering practitioners: Continue reading
Is your Christmas tree a complex structure? Are there three wise men on your dispute board? Berwin Leighton Paisner’s Christmas quiz is back to test your legal knowledge with a stocking full of construction teasers, one for every day of Christmas. Continue reading
A practical ten-point guide for those considering whether to exercise a contractual right to terminate, or a common law right of termination, on their construction or engineering project.
An agreement higher up the contractual chain than a building contract (such as a development agreement or an agreement for lease) can adopt a variety of terms to describe the developer’s or landlord’s main obligation in relation to the works. For example, it could be to “carry out” the works or to “procure” them or, simply, to “arrange for the carrying out” of them. The difference between such terminology can be crucial, especially where the agreement doesn’t spell out the parties’ specific obligations on matters such as design, materials and workmanship.
A few weeks ago, I wrote about the role of expert witnesses under the Dubai’s civil code. Matt has also discussed experts recently, looking at the difficulties an expert may face, depending on his client and the nature of the dispute.
Given the importance of expert evidence in construction disputes and the sheer number of people who must be acting as an expert at any one time, it should come as no surprise to see the topic cropping up again. This time, I was intrigued by what may be expected of the role of an “appraiser” in Turville v Chartis, but not surprised to see some of the judge’s comments in Melhuish v Hurden.
If you are not familiar with these cases, here’s a brief recap. Continue reading