Unincorporated joint venture meaning

This Checklist This Checklist highlights the different avenues for bringing a joint venture (JV) to a close or facilitating an exit, and the factors to weigh depending on the pathway chosen. For guidance on addressing a JV dispute, see Practice Note: Joint venture disputes—how to respond. For further detailed guidance on terminating joint ventures where a specially created or nominated joint venture company (JVC) is involved, see the following Practice Notes: Termination—corporate joint ventures Tax implications of operating and terminating a joint venture company Corporate joint venture dispute—dealing with deadlock: initial considerations Majority-minority joint venture dispute—a practical illustration Entering a JV relationship usually calls for significant planning and effort from the JV parties, who opt to work together for mutual advantage (often by sharing cost, resources and expertise). You will need to assess the full ramifications of ending or exiting the JV, including whether there are sound reasons to be prepared to see that investment lost if the JV is...

In this issue: Adjudication Litigation Arbitration Building safety Procurement in Construction Construction industry news Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Construction trackers Adjudication Joint ventures on construction projects—who can adjudicate? (Darchem Engineering v Bouygues Travaux) The TCC declined to summarily enforce an adjudicator’s award in favour of a company that formed one half of an unincorporated joint venture. The JV, not the individual company, had been appointed as sub-contractor under a sub-contract for works at a nuclear facility. The court determined the company alone was not a party to that sub-contract, meaning the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction. The ruling underscores the need to assess carefully the legal ramifications of delivering projects through an unincorporated joint venture. See News Analysis: Joint ventures on construction projects—who can adjudicate? (Darchem Engineering v Bouygues Travaux). Litigation Defence strike out—still leaves a hill to climb in proving the claim in the absence of the defendant and...

DQR v DQT [2026] SGHC 23 What are tihe practical implications of the case? The decision in DQR v DQT offers clear direction for related companies drawn into arbitration before the courts. In this matter, the second claimant declined to participate in the arbitration and was compelled by the defendant to be joined, despite the likelihood that its stance would have aligned with the defendant’s, as they were operating as an ‘unincorporated joint venture’. By opting for non-participation, the second claimant was barred from seeking any share of the damages awarded to the defendant. The court also acknowledged that all matters arising under the joint venture deed—including whether damages should be paid into a joint venture account, and any allocation of proceeds between the joint venturers—were ‘completely outside its jurisdiction’ (para [86]). The case serves as a timely reminder that related entities must carefully evaluate the arguments they advance and the strategy they adopt both before becoming, and after they are made, parties to an ongoing arbitration...

Introduction A joint study and bid agreement (JSBA) is typically a contractual framework widely used in the oil and gas sector when several parties are weighing up a combined bid for a petroleum agreement. Ordinarily, international oil companies receive opportunities over oil and gas acreage through a host government bid round, in which the host Government encourages rivalry among industry participants for the grant of certain oil and gas exploration and production rights. Applications and bidding can also proceed ‘out of round’ on an ad hoc basis. Commonly, the host government will set out relevant deadlines, technical criteria, and procedures to be observed by interested oil companies during the bidding phase, to be followed as part of the bidding process. A JSBA is a concise, unincorporated joint venture that defines the limits within which the parties will apportion responsibility and cost for studying a specific designated area, and that also specifies how a decision will be taken on whether to submit a joint bid and, if so, on what...

With appreciation to other contributors from Squire Patton Boggs’ offices across its global network. Cross-border JVs There is no universal model for creating cross-border joint ventures (JVs) (that is, where one or more JV parties are based outside the UK and intend to form a JV outside the UK). Ultimately, the agreement’s terms must capture the parties’ commercial bargain. That said, the legal considerations outlined in this and the accompanying Practice Notes—Cross-border joint ventures—taxation and funding issues, Cross-border joint ventures—management and control, and Cross-border joint ventures—termination (together, the Cross-border Joint Venture Practice Notes)—may influence both the jurisdiction selected for the JV entity and the commercial deal itself. These factors should therefore be reviewed at the earliest opportunity to give the JV the best chance of success. Even where a joint venture agreement (JVA) is governed by a familiar law, such as English law, establishing a cross-border JV can still produce unexpected and unfamiliar issues. Each topic is addressed only at a high level, and specific local...