Legal views 鈥� Page 61
-
CommentBeware restrictive covenants
Restrictive covenants can deal a fatal blow to a developer鈥檚 plans. So make sure you understand what effect a convenant will have on the development before you take the plunge
-
CommentO ye of little faith
A recent Court of Appeal case confirms the traditional English hostility to a general doctrine of good faith in the performance of contracts
-
CommentMaking a drama out of a crisis
好色先生TVs and contents insurance is big business. But what happens when an insurer鈥檚 contractor鈥檚 subcontractor tries to get money from homeowners? In short, a bit of a mess
-
CommentGuaranteed maximum prices: Berth pangs
Francis Ho dives into the topic of guaranteed maximum price provisions and discovers how the pricing provisions for the navy鈥檚 new submarine jetty in Scotland were sunk
-
CommentUncharted territory: The Jackson reforms
Lord Justice Jackson鈥檚 cost reforms, which come into force on 1 April, will create a new landscape for litigation. How will this affect construction and engineering cases?
-
CommentWhat implied terms imply
The question of what terms should be implied - and what they mean when they are implied - is often at the centre of disputes, as recent cases show 鈥�
-
CommentAdjudication: A 63 lever arch file problem
Doubtless you鈥檇 feel miffed to have to wade through huge files of material in just seven days so you can serve your response. But don鈥檛 expect a court judge to take pity on you
-
CommentContempt of court: Jailhouse rock
Here鈥檚 a case that started out as a workaday adjudication case and ended up with one party trying to get the other banged up in prison for contempt of court
-
CommentTax compliance: Anything to declare?
New government rules mean that any contractors bidding for public projects will have to disclose a 10-year tax history - and any non-compliance will need a good explanation
-
CommentLitigation privilege: Open secrets
If a document comes into existence for the purpose of litigation, privilege from disclosure can be claimed. But, as a recent case shows, it may be hard to persuade the court to allow the claim
-
CommentLegal brief: HS2 consultation ruling
We look at the three key messages that can be taken from Mr Justice Ouseley鈥檚 recent rulings on legal challenges to HS2
-
CommentNavigating mixed-use developments
The changing environment of work and planning will result in a lot more mixed-use developments - and there are many ways to make these pay
-
CommentDisputes about dispute resolution
Dispute resolution processes can be written into contracts to guard high value projects. But what if the parties can鈥檛 even agree on how the process should be conducted?
-
CommentIdentifying owner occupiers
The part of Section 106 of the Construction Act designed to safeguard residential occupiers is only applicable if they can prove they intend to move into the property as their residence
-
CommentZennestrom's house
Here is a recent judgment that highlights the proper application of the 1972 Defective Premises Act, in a charming Bauhaus setting with a marina view
-
CommentSacred and profane
Tony Bingham鈥檚 surprise at the decision in Acardis vs May Baker missed the point. Far from a clash between 鈥榟igh church鈥� and 鈥榮ecular鈥�, it represented a victory for common sense
-
CommentRecognising the principle of good faith
English law does not recognise the principle of good faith in contracts but now a High Court judge has said it鈥檚 about time that it does
-
CommentLegal brief: Victory for landlords 鈥� but at a price
The Supreme Court overturned a Court of Appeal judgment on residential service charges yesterday in the case of Daejan Investments vs Benson
-
CommentVacant possession: Occupied territory
Redeveloping a property can become difficult if there are tenants involved. We examine the issues that landlords should be aware of before trying to start work
-
CommentRetention: DIY for law makers
Patton Group is just the latest contractor to collapse while owing millions of pounds in retentions. How hard could it possibly be for our MPs to build a ring-fence for these funds?