‘This appeal considered whether the respondent is liable to the appellant for breach of contract and/or under the Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations, reg 15.’
UKSC Blog, 24th July 2019
Source: ukscblog.com
‘The Upper Tribunal has recently provided helpful clarification of the workings of several aspects of the new Electronic Communications Code (“the Code”) introduced by the Digital Economy Act 2017, which came into force on 28 December 2017.’
Falcon Chambers, June 2019
Source: www.falcon-chambers.com
‘Willow engaged MTD to design and build a hotel in Shoreditch. As a result of delays in the project, the two parties agreed a revised practical completion date of 28 July 2017 (‘June Agreement’).’
Hardwicke Chambers, 28th June 2019
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘Firms that exploit consumer loyalty by overcharging longstanding customers could soon face instant fines under plans unveiled by the government.’
The Guardian, 18th June 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Earlier this year I found myself waiting for the Court of Appeal to bring the next instalment in a series of interesting decisions regarding subrogation claims in insurance disputes (not a contradiction in terms, I promise!), which I and my colleague John have been taking it in turns to blog about (see Joint insurance and rights of subrogation revisited and Co-insurance and subrogation rights revisited (again!)). Unfortunately (though perhaps not for those involved) the case in question (Haberdashers‘ Aske’s Federation Trust Ltd v Lakehouse Contracts Ltd and others) settled. But it feels as though there’s been a missed opportunity to answer a question that was left entirely open in Gard Marine and Energy Ltd v China National Chartering Company Ltd: where there is a co-insurance policy in place and a sub-contractor causes loss, if the co-insurance policy (for whatever reason) does not cover the sub-contractor, can the insurer bring a subrogated claim against the sub-contractor or, does it first have to prove the sub-contractor is liable for the loss?’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 11th June 2019
‘Kenson Contractors v Haringey LBC (2019) EWHC 1230 (Admin) was an application made by the Claimant contractor, for an interim injunction against the Council to suspend its decision to award or execute a road-improvement contract to the Interested Party, Marlborough Highways Limited (“MHL”). Kenson came second in the procurement exercise for that contract and MHL came first. Because of the value of the contract (some £630,000 plus VAT) this procurement exercise was well below the threshold for the operation of the otherwise relevant parts of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. The underlying claim was brought by way of judicial review (“JR”) of the Council’s decision to award the contract to MHL rather than Kenson.’
Local Government Law, 22nd May 2019
Source: local-government-law.11kbw.com
‘In January, in the second of the two conjoined appeals of Bresco Electrical Services Ltd v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd, Cannon Corporate Ltd v Primus Build Ltd, the Court of Appeal upheld the first instance decision to enforce an adjudicator’s decision where the enforcing party was in a company voluntary arrangement (CVA). In contrast, last week in Indigo Projects London Ltd v Razin and another, the court refused to enforce an adjudicator’s decision where the enforcing party was in a CVA. The reasoning was that enforcement of the decision would interfere with the accounting exercise to be carried out under the CVA. The court provided useful guidance on when this argument is likely to succeed.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 22nd May 2019
‘Build UK, a leading representative organisation for the construction industry, has published a non-binding recommendation on which contract terms its members should (as a minimum) refrain from using. The recommendation “seeks to form a new common ground between clients and the supply chain on contractual practice in the construction sector” with the key objectives being “to promote collaboration, encourage a fairer allocation of risk through the supply chain, and deliver better project outcomes”. In this blog I look at each of Build UK’s recommendations and consider whether they represent a departure from current market practice, or a consolidation of the examples of best practice that we are already seeing clients and contractors adopting in the current market.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 15th May 2019
‘Broadband, TV, mobile and home phone companies will have to tell customers when their contract is coming to an end and show them the best deals available under new rules unveiled by Ofcom.
Daily Telegraph, 15th May 2019
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘A Court of Appeal ruling clarifies the meaning of “practical completion”, a common source of dispute between construction contractors and employers.’
OUT-LAW.com, 13th May 2019
Source: www.out-law.com
‘It is common practice for parties in the construction industry to undertake work under a letter of intent before the contract is formally executed. This practice ensures that design can be undertaken, materials can be procured, the site can be prepared and, ultimately, work can begin notwithstanding ongoing contractual negotiations.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 8th May 2019
‘Sir Geoffrey Vos, Chancellor of the High Court, gave a speech to the Joint Northern Chancery Bar Association and University of Liverpool Lecture, entitled: “Cryptoassets as property: how can English law boost the confidence of would-be parties to smart legal contracts?” ‘
Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, 3rd May 2019
Source: www.judiciary.uk
‘As construction disputes lawyers, we see our fair share of settlement agreements. And not just the traditional full and final settlements, but also one page final account settlements, and “line in the sand” agreements in which the parties seek to renegotiate elements of the contract while it is in progress. These “line in the sand” agreements seem to feature disproportionately in court judgments, and in this blog I will look at the reasons why this might be the case.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 1st May 2019
‘Robert Jones and Joseph Marsden, who work within the insurance and reinsurance group at CMS, comment on the decision handed down in the matter of Wells v Devani [2019] UKSC 4.’
UKSC Blog, 24th April 2019
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Practical completion of works is often the trigger for other events, such as the grant of a lease. In that scenario, a landlord carries out works in accordance with a planning permission and specification pursuant to a building contract. When the works are practically complete in accordance with the building contract, the landlord will grant and the tenant will accept the lease.’
Law Society's Gazette, 8th April 2019
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘New Crane Wharf Freehold Ltd v Dovener (LANDLORD AND TENANT – clause in lease required tenant to permit the landlord to enter) (2019) UKUT 98 (LC). What counts as “refusing access”, where a landlord has a contractual right to access on notice? This rather odd Upper Tribunal case does at least provide a degree of clarification.’
Nearly Legal, 3rd April 2019
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘It is well known that practical completion is often easier to recognise than it is to define, which is why the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Mears Ltd v Costplan Services (South East) Ltd and others is an important read for construction practitioners.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 29th March 2019
‘Triumph, the multinational aerospace company, has partially succeeded in a damages claim arising out of its 2013 acquisition of three businesses belonging to the components manufacturer Primus.’
OUT-LAW.com, 26th March 2019
Source: www.out-law.com
‘A contractor has won a case in England over payment for work which was valued at nil by an adjudicator, after bringing new evidence to a later adjudication which the High Court said that the second adjudicator had jurisdiction to consider.’
OUT-LAW.com, 19th March 2019
Source: www.out-law.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024