‘Two developers have lost their attempt to judicially review Hertfordshire County Council’s grant of planning permission for a recycling site.’
Local Government Lawyer, 10th November 2016
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Alexander Nissen QC’s recent decision in Spartafield Ltd v Penten Group Ltd brings a degree of finality to the long-running dispute between these two parties. It comes after multiple adjudications and previous proceedings in the TCC. Back in March, my colleague Ebony Alleyne discussed what was then the most recent judgment, dealing with the enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 2nd November 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
Kilker Projects Ltd v Purton (trading as Richwood Interiors) [2016] EWHC 2616 (TCC)
‘The parties entered into an oral construction contract, to which the Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998 (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2011 applied. Following completion of the works, a dispute arose as to the sums due in respect of the final account. In a first adjudication, the adjudicator, having held that no valid “payment notice” or “pay less notice” had been served by the employer, ordered it to pay the “notified sum”, as defined by section 111 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, in respect of the contractor’s final account application. The employer subsequently paid the judgment sum. In a second adjudication, the adjudicator determined the true value of the final account for the works and directed the contractor to repay the employer a sum found to have been overpaid. On the employer’s application to enforce that decision, the contractor contended that adjudicator had not had jurisdiction to determine the dispute because it had been decided in the earlier adjudication.’
WLR Daily, 22nd September 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A second “valuation” adjudication confirming the value of the final payment due under a construction contract is permissible, the High Court has ruled.’
Out-Law.com, 21st October 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘As the deluge of smash and grab adjudications continues to percolate through the construction industry, shrewd contractors are advancing more and more creative legal submissions as a way of reviving interim payment applications that have somewhere gone awry. Twice in the past year, the TCC has been addressed on the issue of whether a contractor can rely on an estoppel to resuscitate an interim application; and in one of those cases, that estoppel was created solely out of the actions of the contract administrator. Although the TCC has yet to fully articulate all of those situations in which the actions of the engineer or contract administrator are capable of giving rise to an estoppel, construction professionals would be wise to exercise a degree of caution and be wary of inadvertently bestowing such rights upon the contractor, much to the detriment of the employer.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 21st July 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘A construction firm based in north London has been fined £550,000 for corporate manslaughter offences, in the first sentencing since new guidelines were introduced in February.’
OUT-LAW.com, 20th July 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Judgment has been handed down by the High Court in the matter of Timothy Taylor Ltd v Mayfair House Corporation and another [2016] EWHC 1075 (Ch), a case which raised in an acute form the conflict between a landlord’s right to build and a tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment.’
Henderson Chambers, 1st July 2016
Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk
‘Leading construction firms have formally apologised to hundreds of trade unionists for putting them on an illegal blacklist and denying them work.’
The Guardian, 11th May 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘About £10m will be paid in compensation to more than 250 building workers who were “blacklisted” by some of Britain’s biggest construction firms under a settlement to be announced on Monday.’
The Guardian, 9th May 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The duty to warn arises as no more than an aspect of the duty to act with the skill and care of an ordinarily competent professional. The existence of the duty recognises that in some circumstances the professional must go beyond what is specified as the desired performance in a contract (e.g. carrying out a design) and account for any risks of which he is aware by virtue of that expertise and warn others who may not be so aware.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 19th April 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘In Vinergy International (PVT) Ltd v Richmond Mercantile Ltd FZC [2016] EWHC 525 (Comm), Teare J held that the notice requirements contained in the termination provisions of a master supply agreement (the MSA) did not apply to an innocent party’s exercise of its common law right to terminate the agreement by accepting the other party’s repudiatory breach.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 26th April 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘With both the US and London mayoral elections gaining momentum, and leading commentators poised to offer independent research, enlivened views and sage analysis, you really would be forgiven for not having had your eyes trained on recent enforcement action in the TCC.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 1st April 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘Since the consequences of failing to serve a valid and timely payment notice or pay less notice can be severe (see ISG Construction Ltd v Seevic College1), it perhaps should come as no surprise that in recent cases, there has been increasing attention on the validity of the application for payment because, without this, there can be no “notified sum” due to the contractor and, therefore, no requirement to serve a payment or pay less notice.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 3rd February 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘Google the decision in Henia Investments Inc v Beck Interiors Ltd and you will find a raft of articles championing the decision as adding yet further weight to the argument that payment applications submitted by the “payee” must be clear and unambiguous.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 3rd February 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘The TCC determined that an ambiguous set of accounts sent by email were not a valid application for interim payment, with the result that the corresponding payless notice had been issued in time. The case serves as a reminder to contractors that the substantial benefits of the HGCRA payment provisions come with the clear obligation to make the nature and content of any application for interim payment obvious to an employer, or else the courts will likely find such an application to be invalid.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 3rd February 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘The TCC had to determine whether an interim payment application made 6 days before the specified contractual date was rendered invalid for being too early. The key issue was whether it was possible that consistent failures to adhere to the contractual payment provisions would create an estoppel which would prevent an out of time payment application from being found invalid. Although Edwards-Stuart J found that it was arguable there was an estoppel for applications made a few days after the contractual date, there was no such estoppel for applications made early and so the application was found to be invalid.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 3rd February 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘The TCC had to determine whether an interim application for payment made by a contractor was valid where it was ambiguous which payment date the application had been made for. Akenhead J determined that this ambiguity would be construed against the contractor and in favour of the employer, with the result that the contractor could not reap the benefit of his own valuations becoming the sum due without having made absolutely clear to the employer the nature and purpose of each application.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 3rd February 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘The trials of 24 trade unionists, including Ricky Tomlinson, seem to have been unduly influenced by Edward Heath. The more we learn about that decade, the more its injustices will haunt us.’
The Guardian, 7th December 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Failure to serve a payment or pay less notice does not prevent an employer from disputing his building contractor’s final account in adjudication proceedings, even where the contractor has already obtained an adjudicator’s decision in his favour, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 3rd December 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The High Court has sent a strong signal to law firms ‘sub-contracting’ disclosure work to third parties.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 2nd December 2015
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024