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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
Uniform Building Contractors Ltd v The Water and Sewerage Authority of Trinidad and Tobago [2026] UKPC 2 What was the background? The Privy Council appeal arose from a 2007 design-and-build, lump sum contract governed by the 1999 FIDIC Yellow Book, concluded between the Water and Sewerage Authority of Trinidad and Tobago ( WASA) and Uniform Building Contractors Ltd ( UBC) for the design, supply and installation of pipelines. The works were structured as two discrete packages, each on a lump-sum basis. Executed on 23 May 2007, the agreement incorporated the Yellow Book, bespoke Conditions of Particular Application, the Employer’s Requirements, together with a Bill of Quantities ( Bo Q). Mr Barry Paul was appointed as the Engineer under the contract. During execution, disputes between the parties arose over performance. WASA served termination notices dated 28 May and 4 June 2009. UBC commenced...
In this issue: JCT contracts Adjudication Building safety Planning Litigation Environmental issues Construction industry news Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Construction trackers JCT contracts A ‘sledgehammer to crack a nut’— Supreme Court overturns Court of Appeal’s decision on JCT termination provisions ( Providence v Hexagon) In Providence Building Services Ltd v Hexagon Housing Association Ltd [2026] UKSC 1, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Court of Appeal’s stance on how to construe the termination machinery in the JCT Design and Build Contract 2016. It held that a contractor cannot rely on clause 8.9.4 to terminate for a repeat ‘specified default’ unless a termination right has already accrued under clause 8.9.3—namely, where an earlier specified default continued throughout the contractual cure period. The court said this reading fits the ordinary, objective sense of the words in clause 8.9.4; adopting a different approach could yield ‘extreme’ consequences, permitting termination for relatively minor...
In this issue: Key developments in 2025 and what to expect in 2026 Building safety Planning Litigation Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Key developments in 2025 and what to expect in 2026 We revisit the main developments in construction law that arose towards the end of 2025, and outline what may lie ahead in 2026. For detailed coverage, see News Analysis: Construction law—key developments in 2025, and what to expect in 2026. Building safety MHCLG launches new building safety newsletter MHCLG has unveiled a new quarterly building safety newsletter, beginning in Q1 2026. The publication will carry updates on legislation, regulatory movements, progress on remediation, resident-focused initiatives, and relevant guidance. Subscriptions are available through MHCLG’s online platform......
Background This appeal concerned the proper interpretation of a termination clause within a building contract. The parties adopted the Joint Contracts Tribunal ( JCT) Design and Build Contract 2016, a standard-form agreement very widely used across the construction industry. The wording of the termination clause in dispute is unchanged in the 2024 edition of the JCT contract. The contract was between Hexagon Housing Association Ltd (the Employer) and Providence Building Services Ltd (the Contractor). Under that agreement, the Contractor was to construct buildings in Purley, London, in accordance with the Employer’s specification. A timetable governing payments formed part of the bargain. The dispute centred on two instances of late payment by the Employer. In December 2022, the Employer paid the Contractor 14 days after the date for payment. In May 2023, the Employer again failed to pay on time; on the following day, the...
News Analysis: Construction law—a look at 2025 so far and ahead to the end of the year In June 2025, we released News Analysis: Construction law—a look at 2025 so far and ahead to the end of the year, where we examined the principal construction law trends that had arisen since January. In this subsequent piece, we reflect on the headlines, milestones and shifts from the closing months of 2025, and flag what we anticipate for 2026. The latter part of 2025 remained energetic. Planning and regulatory reform stayed centre stage as the government pressed on with the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, together with broader plans to cut delays and accelerate delivery of housing and infrastructure schemes. Concurrent developments in building safety, product oversight and standard form contracts contributed to a period of swift change. The courts likewise issued a sequence of...
In this issue: Building safety Adjudication Contract law Litigation Tax for construction lawyers Construction industry news Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Building safety Higher-risk buildings—new regulations for Wales The Building ( Higher- Risk Buildings Procedures) ( Wales) Regulations 2025, SI 2025/1321 (the HRB Regulations) establish the detailed procedural framework for the planning, delivery and sign-off of higher-risk buildings ( HRBs) in Wales. They give effect in Wales to the HRB scheme set out in Part 3 of the Building Safety Act 2022 ( BSA 2022), tailored to the Welsh building control regime. This piece outlines, in practical terms, what the HRB Regulations introduce: the mandatory gateway approvals, strengthened information and declaration duties, controls over design and build alterations, and bans on commencing works or occupying an HRB without the requisite regulatory consent. It explains how the HRB Regulations function, who is bound by them, the stages at which they apply, and the...
The Welsh Regulations, SI 2025/1321, implement the detailed procedural framework that governs the design, construction and completion of higher-risk buildings in Wales. They give procedural effect in Wales to the higher-risk buildings ( HRB) regime created by BSA 2022, Pt 3, adapted for the Welsh building control system. What is the purpose of the Welsh Regulations? This article outlines, in practical terms, what the Welsh Regulations introduce, including: a mandatory gateway approval process heightened information and declaration obligations controls on changes to design and construction bans on commencing works or occupying an HRB without regulatory consent It concentrates on how the Welsh Regulations operate, upon whom obligations are placed, when they apply, and the legal consequences of non-compliance. The Welsh Regulations take effect on 1 July 2026 and apply to applicable building work that either begins after that date or is sufficiently advanced to trigger the...
We extend our thanks to the following individuals for contributing their insights on this key issue: Omer Er, Partner, Michelman & Robinson, New York Antoine KF Smiley, Partner, Reed Smith, Austin, Texas Eugenie Rogers, Partner, Reed Smith, Dallas Lisa Richman, Partner, Mc Dermott Will & Emery, Washington, DC Jessica Sabbath, Counsel, Mc Dermott Will & Emery, Atlanta Daniel R Guadalupe, Partner, Pashman Stein Walder Hayden PC, Hackensack, NJ Albert Bates Jr, Partner, Troutman Pepper Locke LLP, Pittsburgh R Zachary Torres- Fowler, Partner, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Locke LLP, Philadelphia and New York Andrew Drennan, Managing Director, Alvarez & Marsal’s Disputes and Investigations, London J Laurens Wilkes, Partner and Chair of Infrastructure & Projects – Global Disputes, Winston & Strawn, Houston Gustavo J Membiela, Partner, Winston & Strawn, Miami Madison K Haueisen, Associate, Winston & Strawn, Houston Mealey’s: What are your views on the legal, ethical and practical implications of the AAA- ICDR announcing the launch of an AI...
Project One London Ltd v VMA Services Ltd [2025] EWHC 3304 ( TCC) What was the background? The parties contracted for the design and installation of mechanical services under their sub-contract, adopting the JCT Design and Build Sub- Contract Agreement Conditions 2016. The agreement included standard interim payment mechanisms, operating in the usual way. VMA lodged Application for Payment No. 8, stating £106,434.88 as the amount due (the Notified Sum). POL failed to issue either a payment notice or a pay less notice at any point. Project One Limited ( POL) initiated a TVA. VMA relied on POL’s non-payment of the Notified Sum as a defence, contending on jurisdictional and/or substantive grounds that the TVA could not proceed in the face of that non-payment, and asking the adjudicator to require POL to pay the Notified Sum without delay. The adjudicator determined that VMA had made a valid...
In this issue Planning Arbitration Expert Determination Building safety Environmental issues in construction Construction industry news Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Construction trackers Construction Highlights 2025/2026 Construction Highlights 2025/2026 Planning Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 receives Royal Assent On 18 December 2025, the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 secured Royal Assent. This completes the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which was first tabled in the House of Commons in March 2025. As it progressed, the Commons adjusted it at Committee, Report and Third Reading, with the Lords making further changes thereafter. The government’s press release frames the legislation within a growth‑first programme, calling it a landmark step to remove obstacles to growth and get spades in the ground more quickly. Ministers highlight its purpose in freeing projects stuck in planning limbo and...
A30 & others v E30 & others [2025] ADGMCA 0003 What are the practical implications of this case? This decision is notable for arbitration practitioners in ADGM and users of the LCIA Rules, as it settles an enduring friction between contractual arbitration rules and the court’s supervisory role at the seat, for three reasons. First, it sets a definitive hierarchy: for ADGM-seated arbitrations, the peremptory provisions of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations 2015—most importantly section 31 on interim measures—take precedence over restrictive institutional rules. Practitioners may now apply to the ADGM Court for urgent without-notice freezing orders even after a tribunal has been constituted, without concern that omitting prior tribunal authorisation under LCIA Rule 25.3 will be treated as a breach. The Court confirmed that a tribunal’s inability to grant without-notice relief means it is “for the time being unable to act...
In this issue: Adjudication Dispute boards Building safety Standard form contracts Procurement in construction Infrastructure projects Arbitration Construction industry news Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Construction trackers Adjudication Adjudicator’s mistake on programme incorporation triggers the TCC Guide gateway to opposing enforcement ( Kingsmead v Laycock). In Kingsmead Homes Ltd v Laycock Mechanical Services Ltd [2025] EWHC 2617 ( TCC) and Laycock Mechanical Services Ltd v Kingsmead Homes Ltd [2025] EWHC 2618 ( TCC), the TCC granted a Part 8 declaration after applying the tightly drawn four-stage gateway in section 9.4.5 of the TCC Guide, allowing a contractor to resist enforcement of an adjudicator’s award. Section 9.4.5 permits court intervention where there is a plain jurisdictional misstep on a short, self-contained point, determinable without oral evidence, and where overlooking that error would be unconscionable. The dispute centred on liquidated damages withheld by the contractor for alleged delay. The adjudicator directed payment to the...
Trend 1: new participants, different challenges Private investment in infrastructure—most notably in renewables—continues to grow worldwide. IJGlobal reports that infrastructure funds secured almost US$112.05bn in H1 2025, up from US$57.85bn in H1 2024. As funds widen their exposure to infrastructure assets, their presence in construction arbitrations is also increasing. This shift in the make-up of project participants is giving rise to fresh procedural and practical issues: Conflicting approaches to contractor claims and arbitration strategy— Infrastructure funds typically inject finance in exchange for equity in the project company, and their engagement is often fixed and relatively short-term compared with traditional developers or owners who tend to remain involved for the long term. This shapes their stance on contractor claims for extensions of time ( EOT) or additional cost, usually prioritising the strongest financial result within the existing project framework. Where a project has...
On 1 December 2025, US District Judge Dale E. Ho ruled that arbitrator Tina Cicchetti had indeed considered the contested materials: an expert analysis of Mauritian anti-money laundering legislation and evidence that the project counterparty, Vision Indian Ocean SA, had purportedly removed Symbion from project management. Judge Ho observed that Symbion and RW Chelsea effectively conceded this by pointing to portions of the award where Cicchetti recognised both categories of evidence. A Symbion spokesperson said RW Chelsea, previously Symbian Energy Holdings Ltd, has exited its investment in Symbion and agreed to indemnify it in relation to the arbitral award. The spokesperson added that Symbion no longer has any involvement with the Mandroseza Power plant. Symbion and RW Chelsea further alleged misconduct by Cicchetti for rejecting their contention that Vision Indian Ocean had mounted 'abusive' proceedings before a Malagasy...
Kingsmead Homes Ltd v Laycock Mechanical Services Ltd [2025] EWHC 2617 ( TCC) and Laycock Mechanical Services Ltd v Kingsmead Homes Ltd [2025] EWHC 2618 ( TCC) What was the background? Kingsmead Homes Ltd, as the contractor, appointed Laycock Mechanical Services Ltd, the subcontractor, to deliver plumbing and electrical works. Alleging site delays by Laycock, Kingsmead deducted liquidated damages from sums due. Following adjudication, the adjudicator ordered Kingsmead to pay Laycock £27,895.26 plus VAT and his £4,000 fee, but Kingsmead did not comply. Laycock issued Part 7 enforcement proceedings and sought summary judgment, relying on the ‘pay now, argue later’ principle. Kingsmead did not dispute the adjudicator’s jurisdiction or raise any natural justice challenge. Instead, it attempted to resist enforcement by advancing a Part 8 claim for declaratory relief, asking the court to decide that claim summarily as a basis to withhold...
Murnells London Ltd v Christopher Beale [2025] EWHC 2651 ( TCC) What was the background? The claimant, Murnells London Ltd ( MLL), brought Part 7 enforcement proceedings and sought summary judgment to give effect to an adjudication decision awarding £365,332.97 plus interest against Christopher Beale in relation to renovation works at his property. Following a tender by ‘ Murnells Ltd’ ( ML), now in administration, the defendant and ML signed a letter of intent dated 9 June 2023 naming ML as contractor. Thereafter, successive versions of a full construction contract were executed. Despite the letter of intent identifying ML, every signed iteration of the contract named Murnells London Limited ( MLL), rather than ML, as contractor. Works progressed and extensions of time were requested. A Non- Completion Certificate was issued on 18 November 2024, followed on 26 November 2024 by the...
In this issue: Litigation Standard form construction contracts Environmental issues Procurement in construction Construction industry news Lex Talk®Construction: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Construction trackers Litigation Court considers limits of the court’s jurisdiction to retrospectively extend time for the service of proceedings ( Galliford Try Construction v Arcadis Consulting ( UK) Ltd) Galliford Try Construction v Arcadis Consulting ( UK) Ltd [2025] EWHC 3002 ( TCC) underscores the risks in asking, after the deadline, to extend time for serving the claim form and particulars. The suggestion that the defendants had tacitly agreed to more time was not established and, in any case, CPR 7.6(3) permits a retrospective extension only where the claimant has taken ‘all reasonable steps’ to serve, with the burden resting on them. As no qualifying steps were taken before the time limit expired, the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the...
In this issue: Autumn Budget 2025 Building safety Procurement in construction Contract law for construction lawyers Environmental issues Infrastructure projects Litigation Experts in construction disputes Construction industry news Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Construction trackers Autumn Budget 2025 Budget 2025—key Construction announcements In the Autumn Budget 2025, presented on 26 November 2025, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP, unveiled an investment programme focused on ‘rebuilding Britain’ by delivering new housing, upgrading infrastructure and expanding clean energy. The Budget underlined the government’s objectives on boosting housing supply, overhauling planning, accelerating economic growth and driving regional regeneration. See: LNB News 26/11/2025 56. Pick Everard publishes report on construction sector outlook for 2026 Pick Everard has released its Pre- Autumn Budget Construction Market Insight report, sharing detailed results from a survey of 200...
In a ruling on preliminary points issued by the High Court on 20 November 2025, Deputy Judge Nigel Cooper KC held that Tullow Ghana Ltd carries the burden to adduce prima facie proof that a breach of contract, tied to the alleged loss, occurred within six years of its standstill agreement with Vallourec Oil and Gas France SAS. A standstill agreement is a contract under which parties consent to pause particular action for a defined period. If Tullow produces such evidence, the judgment states that the burden then shifts to Vallourec to establish that, in reality, the cause of action arose at an earlier date. In May 2023, Tullow alleged before the High Court that its supplier of water‑injection tubing, Vallourec, had broken two sale agreements dating from 2008 and 2009. The operator asserted that Vallourec had supplied tubing for...
On 18 November, European Commissioner for Justice Michael Mc Grath said he had heard industry feedback and concluded the EU need not impose rules on third‑party funding. Instead, Europe would centre efforts on implementing EU legislation that brings in a pathway for consumer class actions throughout the bloc, rather than drafting further regulatory measures at present. He explained that, based on that input, the Commission would give priority to overseeing how the Representative Actions Directive is applied in consumer collective redress, speaking at the closing session of the EU’s high‑level forum on justice for growth. On 20 November 2025, Paul Kong, executive director of the International Legal Finance Association ( ILFA), welcomed Mc Grath’s unequivocal indication that regulation of third‑party litigation finance at EU level is not envisaged. He added that this seemed to shut down any discussion about fresh rules, which, in his view,...
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
