In my view, this is an interesting question and, until earlier this month, not one we’d seen addressed in the law reports before (at least, not as far as I recall). Without cheating and looking at the judgment in Bexheat Ltd v Essex Services Group Ltd, I wonder how many of you would answer the question yes and how many would answer no. Answers on a postcard please! Continue reading
The EV infrastructure roll out to meet the government’s 2030 target of ending sales of all new petrol and diesel cars is well underway with the private sector rolling out digital charging “at pace”.
At the end of March, the government published plans to supercharge progress (more on this below) with promises to do more to encourage private investment so activity in what is already a thriving sector looks likely to intensify.
With this is mind, we thought it would be interesting to look at some common queries we receive from clients already active in this sector.
The questions span a range of legal disciplines and so this week, in the first of our blogs on this topic, we’ll start by focusing on some of the general questions we are asked.
In the next blogs in the series, we will look at questions that regularly come up in the context of landlord and tenant relations, construction, projects and planning. Continue reading
The keen-eyed among you will note that this is the third post in a row where I have talked about adjudication enforcement cases in which natural justice issues have arisen either directly or indirectly.
I promise that I haven’t got some strange fetish for such matters. Nor do I think that such challenges are necessarily de rigueur amongst aggrieved parties. Rather, I think it’s just that, like buses, we don’t get any cases for a while that deal with a point (here that is natural justice), and then three come along at once.
In the finale to this trilogy of posts, I want to discuss the very interesting Scottish case of Van Oord UK Ltd v Dragados UK Ltd. Lord Braid’s judgment makes for a jolly good read because, not only is it very well written and refreshingly brief, but it also concerns one of the cornerstones of the natural justice challenge war chest, namely what happens when the adjudicator reaches their decision on a basis not canvassed with the parties. The origins of such challenges can be traced back 20 years (which is positively ancient when it comes to adjudication jurisprudence) to cases such as Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd v Lambeth LBC. Continue reading
While defendants in adjudication enforcement proceedings often assert jurisdictional defences as a matter of course, Eyre J’s judgement in BraveJoin Co Ltd v Prosperity Moseley Street Ltd is a reminder that – in practical terms – they will rarely succeed, particularly where they rely on the absence of a crystallised dispute. Continue reading
Episode 9 of The Construction Briefing is now available.
This episode covers the latest building safety developments, including removal of the role of Building Safety Manager, a further update to Form EWS1 and agreements reached on who will pay for remediation works.
Michelle and Yassir also look at two Court of Appeal judgments addressing the embargo that applies to reserved court judgments:
The case of Levi Solicitors LLP v Wilson and another considered the impact of contractor insolvency on debts owed to an employer under a JCT contract.
Significantly, the court helpfully clarified how the payment regime under JCT contracts operated in the context of insolvency.
This blog takes a closer look at the case. Continue reading
It’s a few years since Jonathan wrote about the conflicts avoidance panel (CAP) that TfL and RICS developed for dealing with disputes on London Underground station redevelopments, including redevelopments as a consequence of Crossrail, to effectively ensure that disputes could be “nipped in the bud” at an early stage. It’s hard to know how successful the CAP has been in achieving its aims but, one thing is sure, it hasn’t helped the Elizabeth line (as Crossrail is now known) open on time, and it hasn’t addressed two of Jonathan’s bug bears – getting people to move down the carriage when it’s busy or standing out of the way when they are in the doorway to let others off and on (although COVID might have helped with both of those!).
Similarly, Network Rail’s Dispute Avoidance Panel (DAP) is being used to avoid disputes on the programme of works on the rail network, and is something that Paul Cacchioli has discussed a number of times. He referred to the DAP acting like a “seasoned team of expert fire fighters” being able to spot “smouldering embers of a dispute in the dry grass and inviting others to take action to ensure a fire doesn’t start”.
However, it is probably fair to say that both have raised awareness of the need to resolve disputes before they become disputes (back to Jonathan’s buds or Paul’s embers) and have led to a number of initiatives, including the Conflict Avoidance Pledge that was officially launched in early 2018, and which seems to be gaining momentum. Continue reading
On 28 February 2022, the Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA) published its latest guidance to contracting authorities (CAs) on preparing for PFI contract expiry. It provides practical guidance on managing expiry and service transition. We have previously written about the IPA’s earlier guidance and its PFI expiry health check report.
The guidance is also relevant to private sector entities including investors, funders, asset managers and market suppliers. This is particularly so where both parties want to avoid disputes and work amicably and cooperatively towards a smooth exit, handover and transition process.
This blog takes a closer a look at the guidance and considers what the key takeaways are. Continue reading
I acknowledge that the Ukraine crisis is at the forefront of our minds at the moment and I confess it feels somewhat strange to be writing a blog about a construction dispute, which pales into insignificance in comparison. However, I appreciate that you will have clicked on this blog to read about a TCC adjudication enforcement case, and so I will do my best to do it justice.
The case in question is Bilton and Johnson (Building) Co Ltd v Three Rivers Property Investments Ltd, which was heard by Mr Jason Coppell QC (sitting as a deputy High Court judge). I admit that the case doesn’t tell us anything new about the law of adjudication, but it is a useful reminder of the limits of natural justice challenges to adjudicators’ decisions, as well as the fact that whether an adjudicator’s findings are correct as a matter of law is not material to whether their decision should be enforced. Continue reading
Despite the volumes of case law illustrating the dangers of not having a written contract when carrying out a construction project, it is still common practice, particularly for smaller domestic projects and in this current market where builders are in high demand, for parties not to have a formal contract.
Nine times out of ten all will be absolutely fine: works will progress, any small issues will be amicably overcome between the parties, the project will complete and everyone will be satisfied with the result.
But construction projects can be uncertain beasts. Every now and then, things won’t run so smoothly. There may be defects, delays, cost pressures, design changes, or any variety of unforeseen issues. This is when not having a written contract to fall back on can become a real problem. Continue reading