Piling meaning

Labour’s Mansion House agenda includes setting up fresh pension megafunds, capable of directing a further £80bn into UK infrastructure and start-ups. At the same time, the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) (the regulatory authority that supervises the Bank of England) plans stress checks on insurers that have pledged as much as £100bn for the economy, following the introduction of more relaxed capital rules. Helen Ball, a partner at Sacker & Partners LLP, noted there are many justifications behind both the present and former governments’ push to channel pension assets into the UK economy. She added that while the intentions are sound, every party must put savers first. Elsewhere, court decisions risk piling additional costs onto pensions and insurers. Providers may face extra blows on coronavirus (COVID–19) claims when several landmark test cases finish in 2025. Without government steps to narrow a Court of Appeal judgment from the summer, pension schemes might effectively hand members a blank cheque...

Gordon Winter Company Ltd v NH International (Caribbean) Ltd (Trinidad and Tobago) [2025] UKPC 52 What was the background? This case involved difficulties with piling. NH International (Caribbean) Ltd (‘NH’) acted as main contractor; Gordon Winter Company Ltd (‘GW’) was its sub-contractor. Unforeseen ground conditions made the piling substantially harder than expected, necessitating departures from the original specification and adjustments to the method adopted. Although GW received some payments, nothing was paid after April 2006. Thereafter, GW stopped work and vacated the site in early June 2006, after which NH appointed a replacement contractor to finish the piles. In December 2006, GW issued proceedings to recover the value of the varied piling on a quantum meruit, advanced on a non-contractual unjust enrichment basis, expressly asserting that no relevant contract subsisted between the parties. NH responded with a counterclaim for damages for breach of contract, contending that GW had repudiated the contract by refusing to continue and by abandoning the site. At first instance, Mr Justice Kangaloo found that a...

The need for environmental insurance Bringing brownfield or previously developed plots back into use can boost a client’s property value. Yet the client could encounter the following liabilities: undetected contamination present on the site unrecognised continuing effects on third parties outside the site boundary worsening of existing pollution on-site (for example through contractors’ piling works), and the creation of new contamination at the location While some clients might choose to bear these risks, others—and stakeholders such as funders, prospective tenants and neighbours—may insist on the purchase of insurance. For further detail on environmental insurance in general, please refer to Practice Notes: Environmental insurance—when is...

This Practice Note identifies key authorities on construction contract payment mechanisms under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA 1996), as modified by the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. For further assistance, see Practice Notes: Interim payments in construction contracts and Interim payments in construction contracts. In respect of interim payments, see also Practice Note: Interim payments in construction contracts. Further guidance is available in the above Practice Notes on interim payments within construction contracts for reference. CAUTION: From December 2014 (when judgment was given in ISG v Seevic) through to February 2018 (when the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) issued judgment in Grove v S&T), payment disputes proceeded on the footing that if a payer failed to serve a payment notice or a pay less notice for an interim payment, it was taken to have accepted the sum claimed in the payee’s application/default notice. As a result, for that interim payment, the payer could not later contest the ‘true value’ of the...

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Parent company guarantee (PCG) A PCG is an agreement between a parent company and a beneficiary under which the parent promises the subsidiary’s performance owed to that beneficiary beneath a separate contract between them (for example, a building contract). If the subsidiary fails to fulfil its obligations to the beneficiary, the parent company can be obliged either to perform those obligations itself or to repay the beneficiary for losses arising from the subsidiary’s failure to perform. See subtopic: Parent company guarantees in construction projects. Partial possession Partial possession arises when the employer takes control of one or more parts of the works before the whole project reaches practical completion; for instance, letting a completed storey to a tenant while work continues on the remaining floors. In that situation, practical completion is treated as achieved for the relevant part. See Practice...