Featured documents
R (Greyhound Board of Great Britain Ltd) v Welsh Ministers [2026] EWHC 670 (Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling reinforces the constitutional divide between the courts and the legislature. It explains that the scheme and framework of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (GWA 2006) embody that separation of powers, and that any judicial attempt to recognise and enforce a common law obligation on Welsh Ministers to consult prior to introducing legislation in the Senedd would trespass upon that boundary. This is not a departure from established principle; case law has already upheld comparable rules for lawmakers in Scotland and at Westminster. However, this is the first express confirmation of the position for Welsh lawmakers, and the first time this dimension of the GWA 2006 has been analysed in such depth. The court examined earlier
The solution arrived through the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC), a quasi‑judicial body handling mass claims, created under UN Security Council Resolution 687. By addressing environmental harm—most notably via its ‘F4’ claim class—the UNCC set a seminal benchmark shaping how international law and contemporary arbitral panels allocate financial responsibility for wartime ecological devastation. With present-day wars in areas such as Eastern Europe and the Middle East bringing dam breaches, strikes on chemical facilities, and the burning of farmland, the UNCC’s legacy endures as an essential reference point for states, global investors, and companies engaged in post‑conflict arbitration. The F4 claims: Quantifying the unquantifiable Prior to the 1990s, mechanisms in international law for war reparations overwhelmingly favoured property loss, foregone earnings, and bodily injury. The natural world was commonly treated as a mute, non-compensable victim of armed hostilities...
Understanding the farming business as a business Many farms still use long-standing structures that arose by habit, not strategy. Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common. While once effective, such setups can cause major issues around succession, tax planning and involving the next generation. A corporate team can take a fresh, business-led view of the farm, asking: Who owns the land and other critical assets? Who manages daily operations? Who carries the risk and who enjoys the return? What is the enduring plan for succession? From this review, the team can confirm whether the current setup is fit for purpose or if an alternative — for example an updated partnership agreement, a company, a limited liability partnership, or a blended model — would better meet the family’s aims. Tax efficiency through joined-up advice Tax sits at the centre of most
Most recent News
Providence Building Services Ltd v Hexagon Housing Association Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 962 What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment is an important Co A authority on a contractor’s entitlement to terminate under the JCT Design and Build Contract 2016. In short, the power to terminate pursuant to clause 8.9.4, where the employer repeats a ‘specified default’, is not reliant on the contractor having an accrued termination right in respect of the first default under clause 8.9.3. Thus, even if the employer ‘remedies’ the initial default before any clause 8.9.3 right arises—such as failing to make an interim payment by the relevant final date, but then paying immediately on receipt of the contractor’s default notice—the contractor remains entitled to terminate if the employer subsequently commits the same default again because repetition alone engages clause 8.9.4 regardless of whether any earlier right had...
On 21 August 2024, the JCT issued the 2024 versions of its SBC suite, together with updated 2024 JCT Collateral Warranties. This new tranche follows earlier 2024 publications as set out below: JCT Design and Build Contract ( DB) suite, released on 17 April 2024 (see News Analysis: The JCT Design and Build Contract 2024—what’s changed?) JCT Minor Works Contract ( MW) suite, plus the JCT Short Form of Sub- Contract and Sub-subcontract, released on 15 May 2024 (see News Analysis: JCT 2024 Minor Works Building Contracts and Sub-contract, Short Subcontract and Sub-subcontract released) JCT Intermediate Contract ( IC) suite, released on 10 July 2024 (see News Analysis: JCT 2024 Intermediate Building Contracts and Sub- Contracts released) For insight into the amendments across the JCT 2024 contracts and their potential implications for the construction industry, see also News Analysis: Talking...
Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd [2024] EWHC 1714 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? Although plainly an exceptional and rare matter, this decision is notable for its thorough treatment of what may follow when forgery features in litigation. It confirms that a judgment procured through the use of a falsified document can be set aside for fraud; moreover, the act of forging and deploying such a document in the proceedings can itself underpin a distinct claim in unlawful means conspiracy. In addition, findings of forgery made in the set aside application can create an issue estoppel, effectively binding the court and the defendants in any subsequent claim where the alleged unlawful means conspiracy is in issue. The court nevertheless sounded a warning. At any trial in the fresh proceedings, the onus remains on the claimant to establish the claim, and the...
In this issue Standard construction contracts New home warranties Building safety Contract law Construction industry news Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Construction trackers Standard construction contracts JCT announces release schedule for 2024 edition of SBC The JCT confirms the 2024 SBC will be available from 21 August 2024. The suite features a range of SBC contracts and supporting documents, together with the 2024 Collateral Warranty Documents. See: LNB News 08/08/2024 6. Talking Point—the JCT 2024 Contracts On 17 April 2024, the JCT issued the 2024 versions of the Design and Build Contract and the Design and Build Sub- Contract Agreement and Conditions, accompanied by the related guides. Further publications followed on 15 May 2024, including the 2024 Minor Works Building Contract, its contractor’s design form, the Minor Works Sub- Contract with...
Prescription is a particularly intricate aspect of Scots law, and recent judgments underline the difficulties it can create in construction disputes. This piece offers a concise overview of prescription as it affects construction claims. After a short review of the fundamental principles, it considers when the prescriptive period commences for claims under construction contracts, followed by claims arising under collateral warranties. It then signposts the important changes introduced by the Prescription ( Scotland) Act 2018... Prescription—the basics Section 6(1) of the Prescription and Limitation ( Scotland) Act 1973 ( PL( S) A 1973) states that obligations listed in PL( S) A 1973, Sch 1, para 1 are extinguished if, from the ‘appropriate date’, the obligation endures for an unbroken period of five years without either a relevant claim (eg a court action or arbitration) being pursued in respect of that obligation, or a relevant...
MS Amlin Marine NV (on behalf of MS Amlin Syndicate AML/2001) v King Trader Ltd and other companies [2024] EWHC 1813 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? The decision confirms the enforceability of pay first clauses in marine insurance, and so matters to everyone active in this field and in practice across the sector. That covers not only commercial practitioners and arbitrators, but also insurers, charterers, parties entering into marine insurance contracts and those who draft such agreements. Its impact is broader for commercial practitioners advising, drafting or conducting litigation, because the defendants’ submissions required the court to consider how to approach and interpret contractual provisions that may conflict. The judge addressed three bases for the defendants’ further arguments, namely: instances of inconsistency or repugnancy between a term expressly negotiated and a term drawn from an...
On 17 April 2024, JCT released the 2024 versions of its Design and Build Contract, together with the Design and Build Sub- Contract Agreement and Conditions, plus accompanying guides. Subsequently, on 15 May 2024, the 2024 iterations appeared for the Minor Works suite, namely the Minor Works Building Contract, the Minor Works Building Contract with contractor’s design, the Minor Works Sub- Contract with sub-contractor’s design, the Short Form of Sub- Contract and the Sub-subcontract. Thereafter, on 10 July 2024, JCT issued the Intermediate Building Contract with contractor’s design, the Intermediate Building Contract, the Intermediate Sub- Contract and the Intermediate Sub- Contract with sub-contractor’s design. In this analysis, David Bebb, partner at Fenwick Elliott LLP, Gemma Irving, principal associate and professional support lawyer at Eversheds Sutherland ( International) LLP, and Lauren Morrison, senior associate at Herbert Smith Freehills, review the amendments and discuss how the latest...
Across 2022 and 2023, shifts in construction law moved at a notably demanding speed. The year 2024 has firmly continued in that vein to date. Leading the recent change across the industry, the Joint Contracts Tribunal ( JCT) has issued 2024 editions of several of its principal standard-form contracts, and the long-debated issue of when a collateral warranty qualifies as a ‘construction contract’ was authoritatively addressed by the Supreme Court in Abbey Healthcare v Augusta 2008 (formerly Simply Construct). Building safety has stayed a rapidly developing area, with guidance from the courts and First- Tier Tribunal on key provisions of the Building Safety Act 2022 ( BSA 2022), and the introduction of significant legislation in Scotland. The general election outcome in July, bringing in the first Labour government since 2010, signals wider shifts for the built environment sector, and many further...
In this issue: Standard form construction contracts Building safety Procurement in construction Litigation Construction industry news Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Construction trackers Standard form construction contracts Court sets out the meaning of JCT termination terms ( Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association) In Providence Building Services Ltd v Hexagon Housing Association Ltd [2023] EWHC 2965 ( TCC), the TCC was asked to construe the termination procedures in clauses 8.9.3 and 8.9.4 of the JCT Design and Build Contract, particularly the circumstances in which the Contractor’s right to terminate arose after a default notice had been issued under the contract. See News Analysis: Court offers interpretation of JCT termination provisions ( Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association). Building safety CLC and BSR meet to discuss building control applications The CLC and the BSR have met to address industry concerns around building control applications, including backlogs and delays in handling and...
Providence Building Services Ltd v Hexagon Housing Association Ltd [2023] EWHC 2965 ( TCC) What are the practical implications of this case? The decision offers a noteworthy reading of the intended operation of clauses 8.9.3 and 8.9.4 of the JCT Design and Build Contract. It highlights that, although the termination machinery may appear, on its face, less advantageous to the Contractor in safeguarding cashflow, the Contractor retains several other tools to offset that disadvantage. The court also emphasised that the parties are bound by the language they selected, declining to prefer arguments based on ‘business common sense’ over the actual wording when construing the clause... What was the background? Providence Building Services Ltd (‘ Providence’) entered into a construction contract adopting the JCT Design and Build Contract 2016 (as amended by a Schedule of Amendments) with Hexagon Housing Association Ltd (‘ Hexagon’) in February 2019, for the...
In this issue: Adjudication Litigation Arbitration Procurement in construction Construction industry news Lex Talk®Construction: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content New Q& As Construction trackers Adjudication Sub-contractor’s claims against contractor were not settled by a CVA ( Henry Construction v Pro MEP) In Henry Construction Projects Limited v Pro MEP Ltd [2024] EWHC 1825 ( TCC), the TCC ruled that an adjudicator’s decision was enforceable against the contractor, firmly dismissing contentions that the sub-contractor’s claims were compromised by a company voluntary arrangement, and that the adjudicator’s decision had been obtained by fraud. See News Analysis: Sub-contractor’s claims against contractor were not settled by a CVA ( Henry Construction v Pro MEP). Litigation Claim for introducer fees to proceed to trial despite various challenges ( Matrix Receivables Ltd v Musst Holdings Ltd) In Matrix Receivables Ltd v Musst Holdings Ltd [2024] EWHC 1495 ( Ch), the defendant’s move to strike out and/or secure...
Henry Construction Projects Limited v Pro MEP Ltd [2024] EWHC 1825 ( TCC) What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment grappled with several intricate legal and procedural questions, notably the effect of a company voluntary arrangement ( CVA) on claims taken to adjudication, and assertions that an adjudicator’s decision was secured through fraud. It serves as a useful prompt of the principles the court will apply when a party involved in adjudication is insolvent, and where it is alleged the adjudicator was misled by a fraudulent misrepresentation. The principal points for construction practitioners include: Insolvency set-off does not engage automatically upon entry into a CVA. The consequences of a CVA hinge on its wording, interpreted according to the orthodox principles of contractual construction If a purportedly fraudulent act could have been advanced as a defence within the adjudication but was not, it will...
In this issue: King's Speech 2024 Contract law Litigation Arbitration Procurement in construction Construction industry news Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Construction trackers King's Speech 2024 Built environment industry responses to the King’s Speech 2024 Following the King’s Speech on 17 July 2024, a number of built environment industry bodies issued their responses. See: LNB News 18/07/2024 48. Contract law Court of Appeal confirms that preventing a condition from being fulfilled will not assist a debtor ( King Crude Carriers v Ridgebury November) In King Crude Carriers SA v Ridgebury November LLC [2024] EWCA Civ 719, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the Mackay v Dick principle, deriving from Lord Watson’s speech in the Scottish case Mackay v Dick & Stevenson, forms part of English law. Under this rule, if payment is...
Introduction The Arbitration Act 1996 (the Act) has performed admirably for nearly a quarter of a century. Nevertheless, within the arbitration community there has persisted a belief that a thorough review to modernise the Act was overdue, and recommendations in a Law Commission Report led King Charles III to announce the Arbitration Bill (the Bill) during his inaugural speech at the State Opening of Parliament on 17 July 2024. The King’s Speech on 17 July 2024 made clear that the newly elected Labour government intends to press ahead with reform of the AA 1996 and to pass the Bill into law during the 2024–2025 parliamentary session as set out therein......
ISG Retail Ltd v FK Construction Ltd [2024] EWHC 878 ( TCC) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling reminds contentious construction practitioners to choose the correct route where any factual controversy persists or may emerge. Where material facts remain in issue, Part 7 is generally the more suitable vehicle. The judgment offers clear procedural guidance on deploying Part 8 and confirms that, to succeed under Part 8, a claimant must demonstrate the dispute is unlikely to involve a substantial dispute of fact. It also shows the court is prepared to step in and exercise its discretion to divert an existing Part 8 claim into Part 7 if Part 8 is found to be unsuitable. In essence, the decision reinforces the importance of ironing out all areas of factual contention before commencing Part 8 proceedings. Practitioners should keep this front of mind...
King Crude Carriers SA and others v Ridgebury November LLC and others [2024] EWCA Civ 719 The opposing position put forward in this case—and endorsed by the Commercial Court at first instance—was that, in this situation, the other party’s sole remedy is damages for breach of contract, rather than a claim in debt. On that footing, recovery would be confined to compensation for proved loss. The distinction between debt and damages is critical: Damages: the claimant must prove loss and satisfy the principles of causation, mitigation and remoteness. Debt: the claimant need only show that a contractual sum is due and has become payable, and does not have to prove loss. In addition, damages are compensatory, whereas debts are not. Background The case concerns contracts for the sale of four vessels under the 2012 Norwegian Saleform. The sales were governed by four separate...
In this issue: King’s Speech 2024 Contract law Building safety Litigation Construction industry news Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Construction trackers King’s Speech 2024 King’s Speech 2024—key construction announcements At the first State Opening of Parliament of the newly elected administration on 17 July 2024, His Majesty King Charles III outlined the government’s priorities and proposed measures. For the construction sector, headline items are the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, the High Speed Rail ( Crewe to Manchester) Bill, the Arbitration Bill, and the Skills England Bill. Additional developments of note for construction lawyers include the Great British Energy Bill, the English Devolution Bill, and the creation of an Industrial Strategy Council. Commentary on these announcements is provided by Stephanie Hall, solicitor at Davitt Jones Bould. See: LNB News 17/07/2024...
Pan NOx Emissions Litigations [2024] EWHC 1728 ( KB) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling distilled several central themes of costs management in extensive group proceedings, with potential read-across to other high-value disputes. It confirmed that, notwithstanding sizeable sums, the court will not allow an open chequebook approach to costs. Approach to agreed costs With the parties’ agreement, the court set budgets for items they had already settled. Strictly, that cut across CPR 3.15(1), which prevents judicial intervention in approved phases. The judges observed, however, that the court could instead decline approval entirely and require fresh budgets. Their course delivered the same practical result without direct interference. Proportionality The court stressed that every factor in CPR 44.3(5) feeds into the proportionality assessment, and it also underlined a separate test of reasonableness, namely costs ‘bearing some resemblance to the work reasonably required to properly, but...
Ubhi Construction Ltd v Aspire Enterprises ( UK) Ltd [2024] EWHC 1089 ( TCC) What are the practical implications of this case? A number of practical points arise in real practice: The primacy of contemporaneous correspondence and records is paramount; testimony that is incoherent or misaligned with contemporaneous facts will lack credibility Leaving a pivotal document or material fact unaddressed in a witness statement alerts the court, enabling the Judge to draw a clear adverse inference with ease......
In this issue: Collateral Warranties Standard form construction contracts General election Consultant Appointments Building Safety Scots law Procurement in construction Daily and weekly news alerts New Q& As Construction trackers Collateral Warranties Supreme Court holds that a collateral warranty is not a ‘construction contract’ for the purposes of HGCRA 1996 ( Abbey Healthcare v Augusta 2008 (formerly Simply Construct)) In Abbey Healthcare ( Mill Hill) Ltd v Augusta 2008 LLP (formerly Simply Construct ( UK) LLP) [2024] UKSC 23, the Supreme Court unanimously concluded that a collateral warranty is not a ‘construction contract’ for the purposes of HGCRA 1996, s 104, and therefore does not confer a statutory right to adjudication. The court reasoned that a collateral warranty would only qualify as a ‘construction contract’ where, by agreement, the contractor assumes towards the beneficiary an obligation to carry out construction operations that is separate or distinct from the duties owed under the building contract. As a...
Popular documents
When evaluating a general damages claim, the practitioner ought initially to refer to the Judicial College Guidelines (JCG)...
This Practice Note This Practice Note reviews mechanisms used in settling litigation. A Tomlin order consists of a consent order paired with a schedule. It operates to stay proceedings on terms that have been agreed. The provisions contained in the schedule may remain confidential. This Practice Note describes the scope of confidentiality attaching to the schedule and sets out how it differs from a standard consent order. Sample wording for a Tomlin order is included, alongside links to precedents, as well as guidance on court approval. It also addresses varying, setting aside and enforcing a Tomlin order, including the considerations the court will take into account when handling applications for each. Further guidance is provided on interpreting and applying the relevant provisions of the CPR; however, some courts and divisions impose very specific requirements for both drafting and approval, and for approaching the schedule and confidentiality issues. Accordingly, you must consider the particular rules and court guide provisions in the forum where your claim is proceeding when drawing up the Tomlin order...
Date [ date ] Parties [ name of Landlord ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Landlord) [ name of Tenant ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Tenant) [ [ name of Guarantor ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Guarantor) ] [ [ name of Mortgagee ] [ of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with its registered office at ] [ address ] (Mortgagee) ] Definitions Within this Deed, the terms below shall be interpreted as follows: [ Annual Rent • the annual sum reserved under the Lease; ] [ Insurance Rent • the Tenant’s share of the Landlord’s costs of insuring the Property (as set out in the Lease); ] Lease • the lease of the Property dated [ date ], entered into between (1) [ the Landlord OR [ name ...
I, [ name ], of [ address ], solemnly and sincerely state that: [ Matters to be verified, set out in numbered paragraphs ] I make this solemn statement in good conscience, believing it to be true, and pursuant to the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835. DECLARED at [ details ] this [ day ] day of [ month and year ] Before me ................................................................................ [ signature of the person before whom the declaration is made ] A [ commissioner for oaths OR [ solicitor OR [ insert other qualification ] ] authorised to administer oaths ]...
Discover more from LexisNexis
