REUTERS | Yves Herman
July 12, 2016

No more cold comfort farm: the future looks bright for renewables

A few weeks ago I attended a roundtable discussion with Andrea Leadsom MP, energy minister at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, perhaps better known these days for her dashed Prime Ministerial ambitions. I was interested to hear what comfort Ms Leadsom could provide to renewables investors in view of the unknown political landscape for the sector.

Of course, comfort for renewables has been rather thin on the ground recently. Brexit aside, over the last year or so, the UK’s renewables sector has experienced a period of deep uncertainty. It’s probably fair to say that the current Tory government has so far been a lukewarm friend at best to this sector. Twelve policy decisions in the last six months of 2015 removing various incentives took the industry by surprise; the predictable end result being a nosedive in investor confidence. Continue reading →

REUTERS | Amit Dave
July 12, 2016

Some of the consequences of Deluxe v Beck

Earlier this year I wrote about Coulson J’s judgment in Deluxe Art & Theme Ltd v Beck Interiors Ltd. At the time, I wondered how parties in adjudication may react, particularly the responding party. It may only be a few months on but, with the restriction on the number of disputes that can now be before the same adjudicator at the same time, I am already seeing the impact of Deluxe v Beck on a party’s behaviour and tactics. Continue reading →

REUTERS | Lisi Niesner
July 8, 2016

Mediation update: discussing and negotiating early

The courts have often stressed that parties should mediate early before litigation hardens attitudes and costs become an additional aggravating factor. In Kupeli and others v Sirketi (t/a Cyprus Turkish Airlines) and another, the High Court restated the now familiar message that parties should discuss or negotiate their dispute early. Continue reading →

REUTERS |
July 6, 2016

Common sense is over-rated

At first glance, Carillion Construction Ltd v Woods Bagot Europe Ltd and others appears to be important because it touches on a common issue in delay and disruption claims of how an extension of time is to be awarded.

However, on closer inspection the case is not really about delay and disruption. It is merely another case about interpreting contracts. The case is important because it is a prime example of the more limited role that commercial common sense has in the construction of contracts in the post Arnold v Britton world, in which Lord Neuberger said that:

“…the reliance placed in some cases on commercial common sense and surrounding circumstances … should not be invoked to undervalue the importance of the language of the provision which is to be construed.”

Continue reading →

REUTERS | Brendan McDermid
July 5, 2016

SCL Delay and Disruption Protocol consultation – your chance to have your say!

Some of you may recall that last year I wrote about Rider 1 to the SCL’s Delay and Disruption Protocol. Well, we now have the long-awaited second edition, which has been published in draft form for consultation.

Delay and disruption touches on many of the disputes that you will be involved in, so I would encourage you to comment if possible. The consultation closes on 8th July 2016, and comments should be sent to feedback@eotprotocol.com. Continue reading →

REUTERS | Eric Gaillard
July 4, 2016

Brexit strategy: the EU referendum and construction contracts

The UK and Gibraltar have voted to leave the European Union. That decision still needs to be formalised and the UK Government has stated this will be achieved through notification under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. That, in turn, commences official exit negotiations with the EU.

It has been debated whether or not Article 50 will ever be triggered. However, absent a significant about-turn from the public, it is hard to imagine a significant number of politicians derailing the referendum’s outcome. It is simply a matter of time. As for what happens next, your guess is as good as mine. Will membership of the EU be replaced with that of the European Economic Area or the European Free Trade Association? Or will we arrive someplace else entirely?

Much has been written about Brexit’s potential consequences for the construction market but, in brief, the industry will endure. Demand for new housing and developments will recover. Equally, upgrades to transport and energy infrastructure are necessary to boost the regions and help Britain sustain its competitiveness. Continue reading →

REUTERS | Kim Kyung-Hoon
June 29, 2016

June 2016 digest: Brexit

Charles de Gaulle, who vetoed British accession to the European Economic Community (EEC) for years, speaking in 1967:

“There is the Common Market, and for us, there is no problem. For you, there is one: you want to get in, and that is your problem.”

Almost fifty years on, how times have changed.

There was only one story this month. Prior to knowing the result, June seemed to be all about the remain and leave referendum campaigns. Since we woke up on 24 June to the news that the UK has voted to leave the European Union, there is still only one story.

It may be too soon to tell what impact this will have on the construction sector, one that is economically sensitive to the smallest of fluctuations in labour and the price of materials, and what the future holds for all the infrastructure projects in the pipeline. As Paul Morrell, the former Chief Construction Adviser, said to Construction News:

“As I walk down my street and people are having their domestic work done, all I hear are Eastern European voices. I just don’t know who’s going to build stuff now.”

Continue reading →

REUTERS | Leonhard Foeger
June 29, 2016

Concurrency and the SCL delay and disruption protocol: all together now

The Society of Construction Law (SCL) has recently issued a consultation draft of the second edition of its Delay and Disruption Protocol (Protocol). The object of the Protocol is to provide guidance on some of the common delay and disruption issues that arise on construction projects. Its stated purpose is to provide a means by which the parties can resolve these matters and avoid unnecessary disputes.

SCL has asked that feedback is given to feedback@eotprotocol.com by 8 July 2016 and if you have any interest in this topic I would encourage you to read it and give your views. Continue reading →

REUTERS |
June 28, 2016

Court of Appeal considers witness evidence and judicial bias

Almost a year ago I wrote about Peter Smith J’s recusal in Emerald Supplies v British Airways, which was made all the more interesting because it came about following the judge’s trip to Florence and his lost luggage experience on the return flight.

More recently Peter Smith J has been in the news because of a letter he sent to Blackstone Chambers following an article that appeared in the Times after the lost luggage affair. That article was written by Lord Pannick QC (who practices from Blackstone Chambers). The judge’s letter came into the public domain when another case he was presiding over ended up in the Court of Appeal (Harb v HRH Prince Abdul Aziz Bin Fahd Bin Abdul Aziz). (If you are interested, both the article and letter are reproduced in the judgment.)

It is not the judge’s letter writing activities that I want to concentrate on, but the Court of Appeal’s comments regarding witness evidence and judicial bias. Continue reading →