Legal views 鈥� Page 60
-
CommentArchitect standards: Wrap them up in cotton wool
When things went awry with the Wests鈥� riverside home, and the builder was already insolvent, they sued the architect. Why? He should have taken better care of them
-
CommentParty wall disputes: The end of the party
When a claimant drops a claim, they become liable to pay the defendant鈥檚 costs in party wall cases. But the Court of Appeal has recently issued guidance on when the courts can ignore this
-
CommentWalter Lilly vs Mackay: A curate鈥檚 egg
Walter Lilly vs Mackay grabbed headlines and produced a lengthy judgement. But exceptional cases should not set general precedents in law
-
CommentArchitects Registration Board: Know your place
An architect has been struck off for getting into debt. But is this really 鈥榩rofessional misconduct鈥� to anyone other than the Lord Snootys of the profession?
-
CommentSSIs: Beware the newts
Sites of special scientific interest can be a major barrier to development - even if you have planning permission. Here鈥檚 what to look out for
-
CommentLegal brief: Do architects certificates operate as contracts?
A decision by Mr Justice Akenhead in a recent case provides some clarity
-
CommentWillmott Dixon vs Newlon: A case in points
Tony Bingham鈥檚 column on the recent Willmott Dixon vs Newlon Housing dispute focused on procedural objections - but there鈥檚 an awful lot more to the case than that
-
CommentWind farms: Second generation
A lot of lessons have been learned about the technical side of building wind farms. But what about contracts? Lindy Patterson looks at how things have changed in the last decade
-
CommentProfessional negligence dispute: On the rocks
When a judge blocked a 拢3m award to whisky maker Whyte Mackay, he questioned whether a professional negligence dispute should have come to adjudication at all
-
CommentDoing business in Iraq: Tread carefully
A decade after the invasion of Iraq there are opportunities for UK firms in the country鈥檚 infrastructure sector. But they must be aware of the legal framework they will be working in
-
CommentStop kicking up a fuss
The lawyers in this case raised a number of clever, interesting technical objections. Which were quite rightly dismissed. Let鈥檚 just stick to the facts, eh?
-
CommentLegal brief: Changes to judicial review process
What do proposed changes to the judicial review system mean for planning and procurement decisions?
-
CommentLife on the high fees
Adjudicators were meant to deal with construction disputes 鈥榚xpeditiously and relatively inexpensively鈥�. But the amount they charge is becoming increasingly hard to justify
-
CommentNEC3 contracts: The hole truth and nothing but
If only lawyers would get around to filling up the holes in the NEC3 contract
-
CommentCPC2013: Top form
We need a new form of contract for complex projects that encourages a more scientific approach to risk management. Step forward CPC2013 鈥�
-
CommentLegal brief: Human rights vs adjudication
A decision by the Scottish Courts on Whyte MacKay Ltd vs Blyth and Blyth Consulting Engineers sets an interesting precedent
-
CommentLegal brief: Multiple disputes?
Willmott Dixon Housing Limited vs Newlon Housing Trust leads to an interesting development in adjudication law
-
CommentLeap of faith
Despite what the Court of Appeal decided recently, isn鈥檛 a doctrine of good faith what the industry desperately needs?
-
CommentDirect payment clauses: Caught in the middle
An employer that gives itself the power to pay subcontractors direct if the main contractor does not, may find itself acting as a referee between two warring parties
-
CommentDoing without lawyers
More people than ever are choosing to conduct their own construction case without using a lawyer. Fine, but it calls for a more hands-on approach from the referee