Practical Law

Unlike some meetings held during the course of construction projects, pre-start meetings can be quite refreshing. There is normally an air of positivity and of everyone wanting to work together to make the project a success (the bitterness of disputes has not yet set in).

I want you to imagine that such a pre-start meeting is taking place for a 12-month project, with Jack representing the main contractor and Jill the employer. They have agreed that there will be periodic monthly payments and, thanks to the Construction Act 1996’s complicated payment provisions, they have agreed a payment schedule recording for each of the 12 months the dates when Jack’s applications for payment can made, the due date for payment and when Jill’s payment notice and any pay less notice should be served.

I now want you to imagine that you walk into the meeting at this point and say:

“What if Jack is delayed by an event that entitles him to an extension of time, or possibly his own risk event. Will the monthly payments continue past the dates agreed in your schedule?”

I’m willing to take a guess that 9 times out of 10, both Jack and Jill would say, “of course, the monthly payments will continue up to completion of the works”. However, while that be may Jack and Jill’s view, Stuart-Smith J’s judgment in Grove Developments v Balfour Beatty has shown us that this won’t necessarily be the case under the Construction Act 1996. Continue reading →

I found the judgment in John Sisk v Duro Felguera an interesting read, particularly the adjudicator’s use of a third party (Mr Hutchinson) to assist him in the adjudication. It made me think about how I’d have dealt with the situation, if I had been in the adjudicator’s position and had wanted to use the services of a third party. (Incidentally, it also reminded me of the “phoning a friend” case a few years ago, although the outcome then was entirely different.) Continue reading →

Most of you reading this blog are likely to have read a domestic main contract or sub-contract in the past few days (if not the past few minutes) under which a dispute has arisen. Many of you will also be saying to yourselves, “of course I know whether I can arbitrate my dispute under that contract you silly fool”, and will have already moved on to reading another blog (or possibly social media?).

However, some readers may have no experience of domestic construction arbitration. This may be because they qualified after the introduction of statutory adjudication in 1998 or because of the simultaneous improvements in the Technology and Construction Court (TCC), the combined effect of which has been a steep decline in the number of domestic construction arbitrations. If you fall into this category (or even if you don’t), you might want to read on. Continue reading →