REUTERS | Kevin Lamarque

September 2016 digest: JCT and adjudication

EB White, Charlotte’s Web:

“The crickets sang in the grasses. They sang the song of summer’s ending, a sad monotonous song. ‘Summer is over and gone, over and gone, over and gone. Summer is dying, dying.’ A little maple tree heard the cricket song and turned bright red with anxiety.”

As in 2012, summer has ended on a high note, with British sportsmen and women exceeding all expectations and finishing second on the Paralympics medal table (with 64 golds and a total of 147 medals).

However, it was a relatively quiet month on the legal front. The biggest headline is likely to be the arrival of the JCT’s 2016 editions of its Design and Build suite of contracts. Elsewhere, we published a new note on FIDIC’s Silver Book and there was payment guidance from BEIS.

In adjudication, the court declared an adjudicator’s failure to disclose his involvement in a simultaneous adjudication breached the rules of natural justice and RICS launched a consultation on its guidance for surveyors acting as adjudicators (which Matt Molloy discussed). Matt also highlighted some of the differences with adjudication in Australia. Jonathan Cope looked at the latest Harding v Paice judgment and also considered the recovery of adjudication costs.

Other issues before the courts this month included whether:

  • Knowingly using a defective product defeated a product liability claim (it did).
  • The Bolam test should be abandoned in a negligent financial advice claim (it should).
  • An email plus attachment was an acceptance or counter-offer (it was the latter).

The topics on the blog continue to illuminate, with:

In public procurement, the ECJ ruled that a settlement agreement could amount to a regulated modification of a contract, the Administrative Court held that a development agreement was not subject to the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (SI 2015/102) and the Crown Commercial Service published updated payment guidance.

Finally, next month the Article 50 litigation will be heard in the Divisional Court. In the meantime, you can track the legal implications of the Brexit vote.

Practical Law Monthly digest

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share this post on: