Legal views 鈥� Page 39
-
CommentPayments: Fair dues
When administering payments under a construction contract, it is wise to follow its terms strictly and to remain vigilant - or end up paying more than you owe
-
CommentFooting the bill
Projects often go over budget because of variations, but can the QS be held liable for these extra costs? A recent court judgment finds that this may be the case.
-
CommentTender processes: Fair game
Great care must be taken over payment procedures and timings before and after practical completion, as ignoring them can prove to be a very expensive exercise
-
CommentAdjudication enforcement: Wycombe Demolition Ltd vs Topevent Ltd
Before Mr Justice Coulson. Judgement delivered 31 July 2015
-
CommentOpening the floodgates
The floods over the past weeks could lead to a wave of claims and other legal actions. Construction firms should make sure they can stay afloat in a world where flooding is the new normal
-
CommentAdjudicators鈥� jurisdiction: By the way 鈥�
Much has been made of the Aspect vs Higgins case鈥檚 implications for limitation periods but it also contained an interesting point on adjudicators鈥� jurisdiction
-
CommentExpert evidence: British Airways plc vs Paul Spencer and 11 others(present trustees of the Airways Pension Scheme)
Before Mr Justice Warren. Judgment delivered 21 August 2015
-
Comment2016: Reading the runes
2015 was harder to call than most thought. And with the looming possibility of Brexit, the new National Infrastructure Commission and the ongoing skills shortage, 2016 looks just as tricky
-
CommentArbitration: New toys for the new year
The RICS and CIArb have re-branded arbitration. I like it
-
CommentThe Modern Slavery Act: A lawyer's view
The construction industry may come under the spotlight more than others in its response to this legislation
-
CommentJVs: Out of joint
When a joint venture is formed, each consortium member will often put forward one or more directors to the board. Conflicts of interest can arise
-
CommentCosts Budgets: GSK Project Management Limited (in liquidation) vs QPR Holdings Limited
Before Mr Justice Stuart-Smith. Judgement delivered 24 July 2015
-
CommentContracts: If it looks like a duck
You may not have a contract in writing, but if you鈥檝e had meetings about the scope and price of the work and have got on with the work and even been paid for the work, then a contract is just what you have
-
-
CommentAnother fine mess
From February next year, new health and safety sentencing guidelines will apply. The approach the Sentencing Council has taken is draconian - with hugely increased fines - but is it fair?
-
CommentQuantum meruit: Just desserts
It seems only fair that a party should be paid a reasonable amount for the work it performed. But the courts have taken a nuanced approach to quantum meruit claims
-
CommentGet out there
Construction is in recovery in the UK yet still holds back from competing for work overseas. It鈥檚 time it put itself forward to grab a bigger share of a growing international construction market
-
CommentChristmas stuffing
For those wondering what to put in their loved ones鈥� Xmas stocking this year, here are two page-turners about adjudication that will leave them feeling satisfyingly replete
-
CommentA yellow card for penalties?
When two cases on liquidated damages were heard in the Supreme Court, it seemed possible that the law on penalty clauses was to receive a shake-up
-
CommentSubcontractor discounts: An offer you should refuse?
Who should benefit from subcontractor discounts? Or are they past their sell-by date?