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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
National House Building Council v Peabody Trust [2025] EWCA Civ 932 What are the practical implications of this case? The Court of Appeal has held that, under Option 1 of the NHBC Buildmark Choice policies (the NHBC policies), a claim does not arise merely because the original contractor becomes insolvent. Instead, the right of action materialises when the insured is in the position of ‘having to pay more’ to finish the construction work as a consequence of that insolvency. That approach may give the insured a longer interval after the contractor’s collapse within which to bring a claim before the limitation period expires. Yet, owing to the confined scope of the appeal, the Court did not determine the precise point at which an insured should be regarded as ‘having to pay more’. The alternatives canvassed included the moment when it was...
In this issue: Insurance in construction Building safety Adjudication Litigation Planning Infrastructure Projects Regulations and controls Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Construction trackers Insurance in construction NHBC Buildmark Choice policies: Court of Appeal confirms that the cause of action accrues when the insured party ‘has to pay more’ to complete the building work as a result of contractor insolvency ( National House Building Council v Peabody Trust) In National House Building Council v Peabody Trust [2025] EWCA Civ 932, the Co A dismissed NHBC’s appeal on the correct interpretation of Option 1 in an NHBC insurance policy, confirming that the cause of action under Option 1 does not arise upon contractor insolvency—the cause of action arises when the insured party ‘has to pay more’ to complete the building work due to that insolvency. The precise moment at which the insured should be treated as being in the position of ‘having to pay more’ has been...
VMA Services Limited v Project One London Limited [2025] EWHC 1815 ( TCC) What are the practical implications of this case? The decision underscores that where an employer (or main contractor) does not issue a compliant Payment or Pay Less Notice, the contractor (or sub‑contractor) becomes entitled to the notified sum — namely the figure stated in the payee’s default payment notice — and the adjudicator may direct immediate payment of that amount, without need for a further adjudication. Paying the notified sum is a mandatory, immediate legal obligation of payment. A true valuation adjudication cannot be used by the employer (or main contractor) to challenge liability or quantum until the notified sum has first been paid in full. Accordingly, serving valid Payment or Pay Less Notices is essential to preserve the right to contest payment figures through the adjudication process and to avoid...
On 14 July 2025, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors ( RICS) launched consultation on the second edition of its standard for secured lending valuations of multi-storey, multi-occupancy residential properties with cladding. The refreshed standard is for RICS members undertaking valuations for secured lending......
Latest progress The Bill won third-reading approval in the Commons on 10 June 2025 by 306 votes to 174, clearing its final Commons obstacle, thereby completing its journey through that House. A Commons Library briefing issued on 5 June 2025 identified the main report-stage flashpoints and now serves as the peers’ baseline analysis considering the report stage. The Lords took receipt of the Bill on 12 June 2025 and granted it a second reading on 25 June 2025, paving the way for rigorous scrutiny. A total of four committee-stage days are timetabled: 17 July 2025, 24 July 2025, 2 September 2025 and 4 September 2025, on those dates. On 12 June 2025, Wild Justice lodged a judicial review contending that Part 3 unlawfully weakens habitats protection, with the Office for Environmental Protection joining as an interested party. See: LNB News...
In this issue: Building safety Procurement in construction Adjudication Litigation Construction industry news Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Construction trackers Building safety Building Safety Levy ( England) Regulations 2025 SI 2025/ Draft These draft Regulations introduce a levy on specified applications for building control approval made on or after 1 October 2026. Local authorities are appointed as the levy’s collection agents, with set procedures for assessment and recovery, alongside penalties for non-payment. The Regulations are intended to take effect from 1 October 2026. See: LNB News 11/07/2025 9... Care homes, construction defects and commercial loss—guidance from the Technology and Construction Court ( Toppan & Abbey v Simply) In Toppan Holdings Ltd v Augusta 2008 LLP (formerly) Simply Construct ( UK) LLP [2025] EWHC 1691 ( TCC), the TCC delivered a notable ruling offering further...
Care homes, construction defects and commercial loss—guidance from the Technology and Construction Court ( Toppan & Abbey v Simply) (1) Toppan Holdings Ltd, (2) Abbey Healthcare ( Mill Hill) Limited v August 2008 LLP (formerly Simply Construct ( UK) LLP) [2025] EWHC 1691 ( TCC) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision will be of interest to the construction industry in a number of key respects: Contractors and designers will be expected to meet rigorous fire safety compliance standards The TCC has reaffirmed the established position that defects will be treated seriously, even when latent and uncovered only after practical completion. As emphasised in His Honour Judge Bowdery KC’s judgment, the court will take a dim view of parties who appear to ‘underestimate’ or ‘under‑appreciate’ the consequences of fire safety defects. The judge recorded on several occasions that the...
London Eco Homes Ltd v Raise Now Ealing Ltd [2025] EWHC 1505 ( TCC) What are the practical implications of this case? Where a settlement agreement concerns a construction contract, disputes about that settlement can still go to adjudication if the settlement is treated as a variation of the initial construction contract and the original terms contained adjudication provisions, whether express or implied by statute. Parties must not presume that adopting a settlement with standalone dispute resolution terms (that omit adjudication) removes the option of referring settlement disputes to adjudication. If there is an underlying construction contract, recipients under any later settlement will typically wish to preserve their ability to refer disputes arising out of the settlement to adjudication, particularly if the settlement is not honoured, as an efficient form of ADR. This ruling confirms that, as a modification of the original bargain, a...
Bhundia v Dhar [2025] EWHC 1227 ( Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? The judgment underscores the standard expected of chairs of creditors’ meetings when assessing proofs of debt. A finding of material irregularity showed the original liquidator’s appointment was defective: Mr Bhundia’s proof was not admitted to vote for the correct amount, and Mr Dhar’s vote was accepted when it should not have been. Accordingly, those presiding as chair (including directors or insolvency practitioners) must verify all claims, since their determinations are vulnerable to the court forming its own conclusion on the balance of probabilities if a challenge is brought. Errors can unravel the outcome of the meeting, requiring a fresh decision procedure. Secondly, the decision clarifies the limited finality of construction adjudication awards in an insolvency setting. The court firmly rejected Mr Dhar’s reliance on res judicata and merger,...
Cooperativa Muratori and Cementisti- CMC di Ravenna, Italy…claimants; and (1) Department of Water Supply & Sewerage Management, Kathmandu (2) Melamchi Water Supply Development Board… Defendants [2025] SGHC( I) 16 What are the practical implications of this case? The case sets out a helpful synthesis of the principles governing ASIs, drawing a line between contractual and non-contractual ASIs. In the context of proceedings begun in breach of an arbitration agreement, the court emphasised that party autonomy lies at the heart of international dispute resolution and empowers parties to decide how their quarrels are to be settled. Where parties have chosen a particular route, the courts will hold them to that bargain. Thus, if a party starts foreign court proceedings contrary to an arbitration agreement, there is ‘no good reason for diffidence’ in issuing an ASI to restrain those proceedings, on the...
In this issue: JCT contracts Building safety Litigation Construction industry news Daily and weekly news alerts Lex Talk®Construction: a Lexis®Nexis community New and updated content Construction trackers JCT contracts The JCT Target Cost Contract 2024—an introduction On 25 June 2025, the JCT unveiled its long-awaited Target Cost Contract 2024 family. This is the JCT’s first target cost form, marking a significant expansion of its portfolio. This piece highlights the principal characteristics of the suite, notably its remuneration and difference sharing arrangements. See News Analysis: The JCT Target Cost Contract 2024—an introduction. RIBA publishes blog post on new JCT 2024 contract guides RIBA has issued a blog post on four new guides to the JCT 2024 contract suite, produced by RIBA Publishing. The guides span the Standard Building Contract, Design and Build Contract, Intermediate Building Contract, and Minor Works Building...
JCT unveiled its intention to produce a new target cost form at its annual Construction Industry Parliamentary Reception in June 2023. Two years on, on 25 June 2025, the Target Cost Contract 2024 family was issued publicly, marking the completion of the JCT 2024 suite. This piece explores, in brief, the principal features of that contract family, including its approach to payment and its difference sharing mechanisms, with particular emphasis on the main Target Cost Contract 2024. Reference copies of every document in the JCT 2024 suite (including the JCT Target Cost Contract 2024 family) are available to access on Lexis+® Construction via the following: the ‘ Forms’ tab on our sub-topic ‘ JCT contracts 2024’ (within the main topic, ‘ Standard form construction contracts’), and Practice Note: JCT contracts 2024—reference copies For further information about the other contracts published as part of the JCT 2024...
In this issue: JCT contracts Building safety Payment Litigation Procurement in construction Infrastructure projects Tax Construction industry news Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Construction trackers JCT contracts JCT releases Target Cost Contract family On 25 June 2025, the JCT formally unveiled its comprehensive Target Cost Contract suite. The set comprises, namely, the Target Cost Contract 2024, Target Cost Sub- Contract Agreement and Conditions 2024, Target Cost Contract Guide 2024, and also Target Cost Sub- Contract Guide 2024. Alongside the Target Cost family, the JCT also issued its separate Tendering Practice Note 2024. This family is specifically intended for projects where the Employer seeks to motivate the Contractor by agreeing a Target Cost, with arrangements for both sides to split jointly any savings or overspends (i.e. a pain and gain mechanism). Copies can be purchased via the JCT online store directly. Reference versions will soon appear on Lexis+...
1st Formations Ltd v Lapp Industries Ltd [2025] EWHC 1526 ( TCC) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision underscores that the courts will adopt a common-sense, pragmatic approach to the content of a payee’s notice under the HGCRA 1996 and Part II of the Scheme for Construction Contracts (the Scheme), resisting unduly narrow readings. So long as the notice makes sufficiently clear what sum is sought and the footing for the claim, the court will not seek to interfere or hunt for defects that might render the notice void or ineffectual. Here, the payee’s documents were plainly recognisable as an interim application; they identified the amount asserted as due and the basis upon which that figure had been worked out. The TCC further confirmed that a payment notice is not invalid merely because it asks for a figure below the amount stated as due. If a...
In this issue: JCT contracts Building Safety Litigation Planning Infrastructure projects Construction industry news Daily and weekly news alerts Construction trackers JCT contracts JCT announces conclusion of latest new edition and forthcoming publication of TCC The Joint Contracts Tribunal ( JCT) has introduced the JCT Target Cost Contract as the closing addition to the JCT 2024 Edition. The suite will comprise a main contract, a sub-contract and their companion guides, with publication set for 25 June 2025. See: LNB News 16/06/2025 17. Building Safety MHCLG publishes guidance on the terms of reference for the Building Control Independent Panel After confirming the membership of the Building Control Independent Panel, MHCLG has released the Terms of Reference, outlining the scope and remit for delivering the review. See: LNB News 16/06/2025 15. HSE updates guidance on registered building...
Matière SAS v ABM Precast Solutions Ltd [2025] EWHC 1434 ( TCC) What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment emphasises that when parties adopt good faith duties in their agreements, those duties must be expressly delineated, and the parties should engage with them earnestly, acting with openness and honesty. A breach, however, does not of itself found liability without proof of causation. Demonstrating causation, on the balance of probabilities, is central to loss of chance claims. Here, the TCC held that ABM had to establish that Matière caused the lost opportunity on the balance of probabilities and did not succeed—although Matière breached its good faith obligations, its conduct was not the cause of the lost chance. The court also addressed causation where the conduct leading to the breaches extended over a lengthy period. What was the...
News Analysis: Construction law—key developments in 2024, and what to expect in 2025 In January 2025, we issued News Analysis: Construction law—key developments in 2024, and what to expect in 2025, reviewing the standout construction law shifts from late 2024 and setting out our expectations for 2025. Here, we reflect on the news, events and reforms from the first six months of 2025, and preview what we anticipate over the rest of the year. Momentum did not ease in early 2025. At the start of the year, both the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government ( MHCLG) and the Scottish Government issued responses to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 report. Staying with building safety, the Technology and Construction Court ( TCC) offered helpful guidance on building liability orders and information orders under the BSA 2022 in BDW Trading v Ardmore...
In this issue: Building safety JCT contracts Litigation Building regulations Projects Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Construction trackers Building safety Building safety Damages under the Defective Premises Act 1972—what’s recoverable? ( Wilson v HB ( SWA)) In Wilson v HB ( SWA) Ltd [2025] EWHC 1315 ( TCC), the TCC removed multiple heads of claim pursued against a developer by former leaseholders of residential flats. The defects case relied on alleged breaches of duty under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 and breaches of leasehold covenants. The court concluded that several claimed losses were too remote, or simply hypothetical. See News Analysis: Damages under the Defective Premises Act 1972—what’s recoverable? ( Wilson v HB( SWA)). The Building Safety Levy ( Scotland) Bill—a quick guide The Scottish Government presented the Building Safety Levy ( Scotland) Bill to the Scottish Parliament on 5 June 2025. The Bill proposes a new tax: the...
On 28th May 2025, the government issued a working paper inviting views on reforming site size thresholds in the planning system to better support housing delivery across different types of sites. It examines how varying site sizes should be treated within the planning system and considers removing barriers specific to developers in this part of the sector. Responses are invited by 9 July 2025. It is the government’s intention to implement changes to development thresholds through amendments to secondary legislation and to introduce other measures (eg a simplified biodiversity net gain ( BNG) metric). The paper sets out a tiered approach that groups residential developments into three thresholds: minor developments: projects with fewer than ten homes or on sites up to 0.5 hectares medium developments: a new proposed category for developments between 10 and 49 homes or up to one...
The Scottish Government brought forward the Building Safety Levy ( Scotland) Bill (the Bill) to the Scottish Parliament on 5 June 2025. The Bill establishes a Scottish building safety levy (the ‘ SBSL’, or the ‘levy’) to be imposed on specified residential property developments. Revenues from the levy are to be used by the Scottish Government ‘for the purposes of improving the safety of persons in or about buildings in Scotland’. In particular, the Government plans to apply the funds to the remediation of residential buildings with unsafe cladding. This article outlines the background to the Bill and its key provisions. Background to the Bill The Bill originates in the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower fire in June 2017, which heightened serious concerns over the safety of external wall cladding systems on medium- and high-rise buildings in the UK. Central to the Scottish...
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
