What does the Technology and Construction Court’s (TCC) annual report for 2009-10 tell us about the work of the court?
REUTERS | Fabrizio Bensch
August 24, 2011
The TCC – a court for complex cases
REUTERS | Ronen Zvulun
August 23, 2011
Defective premises: how will a court assess damages?
Ramsey J has provided a helpful summary of the principles that apply in deciding the type and level of damages to be awarded in cases involving defective premises.
He did so in a case involving claims by freeholders of homes built at a development at Eden Park in Hartlepool during 2002 to 2004 (Harrison and others v Shepherd Homes Ltd and others [2011] EWHC 1811 (TCC)). Continue reading
REUTERS | Ilya Naymushin
August 23, 2011
Concurrency (and promiscuity) in the TCC
I don’t know about you, but I often find that the introduction to a TCC judgment sets the tone of the dispute and (I’m embarrassed to say) influences whether I read the entire judgment or simply pick out the interesting bits and then turn to the end for the result.
I was certainly encouraged to read the entirety of Coulson J’s judgment in Jerram Falkus v Fenice Investments when I discovered that the parties had been “…extraordinarily promiscuous in their attempts at dispute resolution…”. (I have previously blogged on the parties’ dispute over the adjudicator’s fees in one of three adjudications that took place.) Continue reading
REUTERS | Mike Blake
August 22, 2011
Ask the team: do the adjudication provisions of the Scheme always apply wholesale under the Construction Act 1996 (as amended)?
What happens if a construction contract fails to comply with the adjudication requirements of the Construction Act 1996 (as amended)?
In particular, what if a Tolent clause offends the Construction Act 1996 (as amended)? Will the Scheme for Construction Contracts 1998’s adjudication provisions replace all the contractual adjudication provisions? Continue reading
REUTERS | Jose Miguel Gomez
August 17, 2011
Is your building contract gathering dust?
So, after the tense negotiations, you have popped the champagne corks and finally have a building contract signed and completed. But now what? Do you let it become an attractive paperweight? Or is it going to be your Satnav – the tool that guides you through the construction process and helps you navigate any roadblocks along the way?
REUTERS | Eduardo Munoz
August 16, 2011
Requesting more time after the riots
Last week I received a request from the solicitors for one of the parties in an adjudication to have more time to serve a submission. What made this request stand out was the reasons given, “because of the riots”. It isn’t a common reason, I’m pleased to say.
Of itself, a request for more time is not unusual. Such requests come in quite regularly from the parties or their representatives. It is a question of natural justice really. Continue reading
REUTERS | Petar Kujundzic
Michael Conroy Harris, senior legal manager (pictured) and Jeremy Irving, partner:
The current riots and disturbances in cities across England raise a number of issues relating to construction sites. These include fundamental health and safety issues but also important considerations in relation to any damage or delay caused to the works. Continue reading
REUTERS | Jason Lee
August 11, 2011
Contract is king but it’s so unfair
The facts in Costello v Macdonald are not uncommon in the construction industry, when a party wants to redevelop a site that it owns:
REUTERS | Lisi Niesner
August 9, 2011
Civil litigation costs – imminent revolution or evolution?
Following Jackson LJ’s Review of Civil Litigation Costs: Final Report, published in January 2010, and a Ministry of Justice consultation paper in November 2010, lawyers waited with eager anticipation (or, in some cases, trepidation) as to what civil litigation costs reforms the government would recommend implementing. The Ministry of Justice’s response highlighted that “the way forward” is to implement Jackson LJ’s main reforms.
REUTERS | Tobias Schwarz
August 9, 2011
Assessing the evidence and using your own judgment
As I said previously, when I read Edwards-Stuart J’s judgment in Hyder v Carillion, two things struck me:
- The court confirming that it is the decision of the adjudicator that is binding, not his reasoning.
- The question an adjudicator should ask himself as to whether he should share or put his approach or interpretation to the parties?
This post considers the second point. Continue reading