Drum roll please… In case you haven’t heard already, FIDIC has announced that second editions of the Red, Yellow and Silver Books (1999 Suite) will be released at the FIDIC International Contract Users’ conference in London in December. I’ll be covering those in future blogs but in the meantime, in this second instalment, I look at some of the issues that arise in practice when users amend a FIDIC contract as well as FIDIC’s proposed new “Golden Principles”. Continue reading
Getting paid is a subject that is close to everyone’s heart. It is probably why I have blogged about payment so much over the years, from the early days when I considered when I would get paid to my most recent piece about adjudicators’ T&C’s. Along the way, I’ve looked at a variety of other topics, such as at what point an adjudicator should start incurring fees.
I have also considered some key judgments, such as Linnett v Halliwells LLP, Fenice Investments Inc v Jerram Falkus Construction Ltd, PC Harrington Contractors Ltd v Systech International Ltd and Christopher Linnett Ltd v Harding (t/a M J Harding Contractors). Even if you don’t remember the cases, the principles are likely to be familiar (or, at least, I hope so!).
Therefore, it should come as no surprise that this week I’m turning my attention to HHJ Davies’ judgment in The Vinden Partnership Ltd v Orca LGS Solutions Ltd. Continue reading
The parties to procurement challenges are required to act quickly and in accordance with a strict timetable.
When a losing bidder issues a claim, it must serve the claim form on the defendant within seven days after the date of issue. Pursuant to CPR 7.4(2), the particulars of claim are to be served no later than the latest time for serving the claim form. That is, they must also be served within seven days after the date of issue.
The difficulties faced by a losing bidder in complying with this timetable are compounded by the fact that it is in a uniquely difficult position because the reasons for its failure are within the peculiar knowledge of the public authority. Losing bidders must therefore often plead their claims in broad terms without sight of key documents that the defendant may disclose later in the proceedings.
However, these difficulties are not an excuse for non-compliance with the timetable. In Cemex UK Operations Ltd v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd, the TCC re-emphasised the importance of complying with the timetable and the risks associated with non-compliance. Continue reading
Building information modelling (BIM) has been steadily gaining traction in the construction industry over the past few years and the prediction back in 2011 from the UK Government’s Chief Construction Adviser, that professions which failed to adopt BIM risked being “Betamaxed out” is ringing eerily true. And it’s not only centrally procured projects that are using Level 2 BIM in line with the government edict. Certainly, on many of the commercial developments that are coming across my desk, BIM tends to be part and parcel of the contract.
We all know that BIM raises various legal issues, particularly around design access and ownership. While the technology is still in its relative infancy at Level 2, these fledgling points can normally be dealt with by tweaks to drafting and the incorporation of a BIM protocol. Of course, with the potential of a further jump to BIM Level 3 in the not too distant future, true integration may raise a whole new host of legal issues. Continue reading
After a summer of writing about arbitration and experts, it is nice to turn my attention to adjudication for a change. As the observant will realise, this is my second adjudication case in a row!
Jacobs UK Ltd v Skanska Construction UK Ltd was a dispute all about the adequacy of Jacobs’ design services, which related to street lighting in Lewisham and Croydon. It highlights some interesting issues related to whether a party is entitled to withdraw from an adjudication and then start again. Continue reading
On the face of it, the judgment in North Midland Building Ltd v Cyden Homes Ltd is one to which you might say “so what”? The parties agreed in their contract to disregard the effect of any concurrent delay in assessing the contractor’s entitlement to an extension of time. Surprise surprise, the court gave effect to the amendment. You can envisage the headline:
“Court gives effect to parties’ agreement, yet again”.
However, the judgment is much more interesting for construction lawyers, as it provides guidance on some of my favourite quirks of construction law: concurrent delay, time at large and the prevention principle. Continue reading
For those of who have a weekly blog to populate with content, the court’s summer recess can prove to be a challenging time. It leads us to cast our net further afield looking for ideas and cases to highlight. That is why, this week, I’m looking at two cases from August, one a personal injury claim from the County Court in Leeds, the other an intellectual property dispute from the Chancery Division. What both have in common are some choice words about the parties’ expert evidence. I know Jonathan has looked at this topic twice in recent months but, as I said, we’ve had the summer recess and these comments are just too bloggable to be ignored! Continue reading
It’s been a while since I’ve blogged about a payment notice case, and so the case of Jonjohnson Construction Ltd v Eagle Building Services Ltd caught my eye. Unfortunately, it’s another one of those cases that isn’t on BAILII, so not all of you reading this will have access to it. It’s a great shame that an increasing amount of cases aren’t appearing on BAILII because it means that not all practitioners get to read them. Anyway, I’m digressing… Continue reading
Einstein famously said that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion. The nature of time is not an easy concept to grapple with and I had a similar (albeit not quite so ethereal) experience preparing a recent seminar on the practical effect of the decision in Carillion Construction v Emcor Engineering Services relating to contiguous (or rather non-contiguous) extensions of time. Continue reading
Euripides, The Children of Heracles:
“In case of dissension, never dare to judge till you’ve heard the other side.”
A selection of the more interesting decisions affecting construction and engineering practitioners during the third quarter of 2017. Continue reading