Provisional sum meaning

This Checklist sets out actions that can be taken—some at procurement stage and others during the life of a project—to help minimise the chance of disputes emerging on construction projects... During the procurement process Select the right procurement route Ensure the procurement method fits the specific context. For instance, where the employer wants to maintain control of the design or specified materials, a traditional contract may suit better than design and build. Conversely, if an earlier start on site is essential, design and build might be the preferred choice. See Practice Note: Choosing the right procurement method—construction projects. Adopt the correct pricing structure Choose a pricing approach that aligns with the employer’s objectives. If price certainty is a priority, a lump sum contract is generally more suitable than a prime cost arrangement. Where a lump sum is used, avoid inserting an excessive number of provisional sums, as these can undermine the desired cost certainty. See Practice Notes:...

In this issue: Directors and insolvency Corporate insolvency processes Insolvency litigation Daily and weekly news alerts Key dates for R&I professionals Directors and insolvency BHS directors liable for trading misfeasance in excess of £110m (Wright v Chappell; Re BHS Group Ltd). Concluding the proceedings against the former BHS leadership, the Court determined the directors were jointly and severally accountable for the uplift in the company’s net deficiency, caused by breaches of duty that kept the business trading. See News Analysis: BHS directors liable for trading misfeasance in the sum of more than £110m (Wright and others v Chappell and others; Re BHS Group Ltd), by Phillip Patterson, barrister, Gatehouse Chambers. Recovery of improper payments and unlawful dividends from directors of insolvent company (Manolete Partners v Mohammed). The court accepted, in relation to a number of payments made by the company, that creditors’ interests were triggered at an early point; the entity’s apparent solvency depended on including...

In this issue: Trusts Court of Protection UK taxation for private clients HMRC manual updates Tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance Family enterprises and ownership frameworks Charity and philanthropy Disputed trusts and estates Pensions, insurance and tax-efficient investments Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland International Question of the week Further Private Client updates this week Daily and weekly news alerts LexTalk®Private Client: a Lexis+® community New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q&As Useful information Trusts Help! We can’t find the Trust Deed (In re Fassam deceased) When the original trust deed could not be located, yet other deeds made by the deceased for similar settlements were to hand, the court inferred the missing terms probably matched them—namely, an equal division between the two children. On that footing, the court permitted the trustees to release the trust fund to the deceased’s only...

What is a prime cost contract? Put simply, where a deal is let on a ‘prime cost’ basis, the contractor recovers the expenditure it incurs in delivering the works — such as labour and materials (including those supplied by sub‑contractors) — plus a management fee on top to cover overheads and profit. This differs from the usual lump sum arrangement, under which the employer and contractor fix the total contract price payable to the contractor at the outset (subject to any clauses permitting adjustments as the works proceed) and the contractor bears the risk of any rise in the cost of the works. Management contracting is a common setting for prime costs in practice. The management contractor is remunerated with a fee for its services plus the prime costs it incurs in performing its functions. Those costs include amounts paid to the works contractors for the works they carry out. See Practice Note: Management contracting. A prime cost arrangement is generally viewed as equivalent to a ‘cost plus’...

This Practice Note outlines how Duxbury calculations are constructed and applied in practice to the assessment and calculation of capitalised spousal or civil partner maintenance/periodical payments within financial remedy proceedings, setting out the underlying assumptions, the limitations, and the circumstances in which such calculations are suitable and practically appropriate. It also reviews the courts’ general approach to rates of return. The basis of Duxbury calculations A Duxbury calculation was originally conceived to determine, in substance, the capital sum required to fund a fixed-rate periodical payment for the remainder of the recipient’s life, that is, their actuarial life expectancy as projected. In November 2024, the Duxbury Working Group, which is self-selected, published its final report (following a provisional report in October 2024) addressing earlier criticisms and advancing proposals ‘to banish outdated concepts and generally to modernise the approach’, while confirming that ‘it will be a matter for the courts whether to adopt the recommendations’. The Duxbury calculations are available via At a Glance 2025–2026...

Background and framework In the great majority of personal injury and clinical negligence claims, when the court grants damages, the sum is usually paid at once as a lump sum straight to the claimant. That said, in any such claim where the award concerns future pecuniary loss, the court may direct that compensation be paid by way of periodical instalments, in full or in part. In fact, in these circumstances the court is required to consider whether to make such an order. The Damages Act 1996 (DA 1996) authorises the court, in personal injury proceedings, to make a periodical payments order (PPO), to award a lump sum, or to provide a mixture of both. For the purposes of DA 1996, s 7(1), 'personal injury' extends to any disease or any impairment of the claimant’s physical or mental condition, and a personal injury claim includes a claim issued under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 as well as a claim pursued under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976. Why...