Legal News

Lloyds Development Ltd v Accor Hotelservices UK Ltd [2025] EWHC 1238 ( TCC) What are the practical implications of this case? At its heart, the decision confirms that an ATE policy only suffices as security for costs if the court is persuaded there is no real prospect that it will fail to pay out in full. That assurance can be achieved by deploying an AAE to resolve doubts about the sufficiency and wording of the cover. Any claimant intending to rely on such a policy must be prepared to disclose it and, where required, to renegotiate or reprocure it so that the court is satisfied it can stand in place of a payment into court. Defendants who harbour reservations about the policy should engage constructively with the claimant and set out their objections with full particulars as early as possible, enabling the claimant to address them and...

Wilson and others v HB ( SWA) Ltd and others [2025] EWHC 1315 ( TCC) What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment offers practical guidance on the assessment of damages for breaches of the duty in section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 ( DPA 1972), and highlights examples of losses that may not be recoverable. Section 1 DPA 1972 imposes obligations on those carrying out works to construct new dwellings (ie residential properties) to execute the works in a skilful or professional way and to use appropriate materials, so that on completion the property is fit for habitation. Aspects of DPA 1972 claims have been considered in earlier authorities—most recently, URS v BDW (decided in May 2025), in which the Supreme Court examined who can sue and limitation-related issues. However, there seem to be relatively few decisions that analyse in...

In this issue: Building safety Procurement in construction Lex Talk®Construction: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Construction trackers Building safety Supreme Court confirms developer’s entitlement to pursue negligence, DPA 1972 and contribution claims for remediation costs against structural engineer ( URS v BDW) The judgment in URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2025] UKSC 21 marks the latest instalment in a sequence of decisions stemming from proceedings by a developer ( BDW) against its structural engineer ( URS) over structural shortcomings in two residential developments. The remedial works were undertaken when BDW no longer retained any proprietary interest in those sites, and before any third-party claims had been intimated......

URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2025] UKSC 21 What are the practical implications of this case? The Supreme Court has delivered a definitive ruling on several legal questions of fundamental significance to the construction sector, particularly in the post- Grenfell landscape where claims for historic defects are widespread. Current and prospective claimants bringing claims in tort, under the DPA 1972, and for contribution arising from defective works will be encouraged by the Court’s clarifications. Notably, the judgment opens the way for negligence claims to recover repair costs incurred when the claimant no longer had any proprietary interest in the property and was under no enforceable liability towards third parties, which is especially pertinent where BSA 2022, s 135(3) has retrospectively revived DPA 1972 claims that were previously time-barred. The Court further confirmed that DPA 1972, s 1 applies to original...

In this issue: Third party rights Projects Contract law Planning Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Construction trackers Third party rights Third party rights—welcome guidance from the high court ( HNW Lending v Lawrence) In HNW Lending Ltd v Lawrence [2025] EWHC 908 ( Ch), the judge, Lenon KC, noted a marked scarcity of authority on section 1(1) of the Contracts ( Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 ( C( RTP) A 1999). While that is an accurate point, he could just as well have remarked (though did not) that this shortage of case law spans the Act as a whole, not solely C( RTP) A 1999, s 1(1). This is striking given the increasingly common reliance on the C( RTP) A 1999 in commercial arrangements—and arguably most often in construction...

The UK Supreme Court has thrown out a challenge by URS Corp Ltd, a subsidiary of infrastructure consultancy AECOM, seeking to avoid claims from BDW Trading Ltd, the business behind developer Barratt Redrow. Justice Andrew Burrows explained that the court dismissed URS Corp’s contention that the expense of remedial works to two high-rise apartment blocks fell outside its duty of care to BDW Trading because BDW chose to carry out the works. He stated there is no applicable ‘voluntariness principle’ and, in any event, BDW may not have been acting of its own free will, at all, as it was addressing the risk of injury or death to occupants of the towers. ‘ It is strongly arguable that three aspects of the assumed facts show BDW was not, in a real sense, acting voluntarily when paying for the repairs to be...

Background to NISTA’s formation Bringing the NIC and IPA together tackles the entrenched gap between high-level planning and on-the-ground delivery that has long hindered major infrastructure schemes. This move is backed by strong evidence: the Construction Leadership Council reviewed 20,000 schemes and found that thorough front-end planning cut costs markedly and sped up completion. The NIC’s 2024 report also singled out the split between strategy and execution as a key cause of rising UK infrastructure costs. By merging, government intends to streamline infrastructure development, trim red tape, and strengthen coordination across all facets of delivery. NISTA’s role and potential impact NISTA’s brief goes well beyond tidying up structures. It will act as the focal point for both strategy and delivery, from shaping the ten-year infrastructure plan to advising on private finance and delivery practice. In priority places like the Oxford– Cambridge Growth Corridor, NISTA will plan in the...

Facts The defendant in the proceedings, Ms Lawrence, entered into a loan agreement with a lender, for whom HNW, the claimant in the matter, acted as the security agent for the lender. The purpose of the loan agreement was to help finance Ms Lawrence’s development of a property. That property was also secured separately by a legal mortgage, operating as continuing security to the lender under the loan terms. Although HNW was not itself a party to the loan agreement, the loan agreement nonetheless contained an express provision said to grant HNW certain third party rights to enforce its terms; namely, that, even though HNW Lending Ltd was not a party to this Loan Agreement, HNW Lending Ltd could take the benefit of and specifically enforce each and every express term of the Loan Agreement, together with any term implied under it pursuant to the...

Chugga Chugg Pty Ltd v Privinvest Holding Sal [2025] EWHC 585 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision offers practical guidance for businesses negotiating termination or handling guarantees: Advisers should urge clients to record, in clear terms, any conversations about possible termination, and ensure exploratory exchanges are expressly labelled as such. The judgment shows that mooting a consensual termination subject to price does not amount to renunciation. Mrs Justice Dias stressed that only a ‘clear, absolute and unequivocal’ refusal to perform qualifies. The standard is objective: viewed through the reasonable eyes of the innocent party, did the other side plainly signal an unwillingness or inability to perform, irrespective of its subjective intentions? Simply indicating a willingness to terminate if the figures work is not enough When faced with an alleged renunciation, innocent parties must act promptly to affirm or bring the...

In this issue: Building safety Litigation Standard form contracts Energy Environmental issues Construction industry news Daily and weekly news alerts Construction trackers Building safety Supreme Court holds retrospective effect of section 135 of the BSA 2022 applies to claims dependent on section 1 of the DPA 1972 ( URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd) The Supreme Court has rejected all four grounds of appeal in URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2025] UKSC 21, confirming that the retrospective limitation in section 135(3) of the Building Safety Act 2022 ( BSA 2022) extends beyond claims brought squarely under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 ( DPA 1972). It also captures claims that turn on the DPA 1972, s1 limitation period, even where they are not advanced under that provision. The Court further held that remedial expenditure a claimant chooses to incur may, in tort, be recoverable. Mathias Cheung, a...

Ergo has reached settlement terms with Derrysallagh Windfarm Ltd and its shareholder, EFS European Holdco, as recorded in a Tomlin Order issued by the High Court on 8 May 2025 and only recently made public. The settlement’s particulars were not released, and representatives of the companies were not immediately available to comment. The agreement follows a claim brought in 2022 by Derrysallagh and its shareholder against the British arm of the German insurer. They asserted they were owed funds after construction of the wind farm was delayed because Derrysallagh faced legal action from a neighbouring landowner. The claimants maintained that Ergo was obliged to indemnify them for the sums they say were lost owing to the delayed completion of the project in Ireland......

In this edition: Adjudication Procurement in construction Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Construction trackers Adjudication Procedural and security for costs issues when seeking a stay of an adjudicator’s award in insolvency and a cross-claim ( Midas Construction v Harmsworth). In Midas Construction Ltd (in administration) v Harmsworth Pension Funds Trustees Ltd [2025] EWHC 1122 ( TCC), the TCC, on an application to enforce an adjudicator’s decision in favour of an insolvent claimant, invited the parties to agree an appropriate order to stay enforcement......

Midas Construction Ltd (in administration) v Harmsworth Pension Funds Trustees Ltd [2025] EWHC 1122 ( TCC) What are the practical implications of this case? This decision underscores that, although the courts typically take a firm line in upholding an adjudicator’s award, an insolvent claimant holding a favourable determination will often encounter obstacles where the defendant has live cross-claims. It therefore operates as a caution for parties dealing with insolvent counterparties following adjudication. Here, the insolvent entity was willing to consent to a stay of enforcement, yet the court still had to address two matters: (i) whether the litigation should be sequenced so that a discrete issue, potentially generating a £1.5m payment to the insolvent party, was tried first, ahead of the opponent’s defects cross-claim; and (ii) what level of security for costs was appropriate in that litigation. The TCC affirmed that any...

Central Bank of Iraq v Cardno Middle East Ltd, Paris Court of Appeal, 21 January 2025, No 23/05511 What are the practical implications of this case? The principal practical lessons from this judgment are: To begin with, the ruling underscores how limited international public policy objections truly are. The bar for setting aside an award on that basis remains extraordinarily high. Claims of fraud or misrepresentation between private parties are approached as matters of contract, not breaches of international public policy. Only behaviour offending core norms—such as corruption or money laundering—can ground annulment under Article 1520, 5 of the French Code of Civil Procedure ( FCCP). Where such points were not duly advanced during the arbitration, Article 1466 FCCP applies, treating as waived any irregularity not raised promptly. The message is unmistakable: parties cannot turn international public policy into a tool to overturn an...

In this issue: Contract law Litigation Building safety Procurement in construction Planning Construction industry news Daily and weekly news alerts New Q& As New and updated content Construction trackers Contract law Conditions precedent In Disclosure and Barring Service v Tata Consultancy Services Ltd (a company registered in Mumbai, India) [2025] EWCA Civ 380, the Court of Appeal affirmed a significant interpretation point, rejecting the Disclosure and Barring Service’s ( DBS) appeal against Tata Consultancy Services Ltd ( TCS) in relation to a £1.6m liquidated damages claim. Victoria Peckett, partner at Clyde & Co, explores the ramifications of the ruling: Court of Appeal considers the interpretation of condition precedent clauses in Disclosure and Barring Service v Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Litigation Judgment Alert: The New Lottery Company Ltd and another company v The Gambling Commission [2025] EWHC 1058 ( TCC) In The New...

In this issue: Contract law Adjudication Arbitration Building safety Procurement in construction Litigation Infrastructure projects Tax for construction lawyers Construction industry news Daily and weekly news alerts New Q& As Construction trackers Contract law Construction contracts by Whats App and invoices as payment applications ( Jaevee v Fincham) In Jaevee Homes Ltd v Fincham [2025] EWHC 942 ( TCC), the TCC determined that, despite the informality, the parties formed a binding contract through an exchange of Whats App messages. The core terms were agreed, while any remaining provisions were non-essential or would be implied. The court also decided that three of the defendant’s four invoices were valid payment applications; two did not include a mathematical breakdown of the amounts due, yet, in context, the invoices were clear enough and intended as...

Dragados UK LTD against Port of Aberdeen [2025] CSOH 37 What are the practical implications of this case? This decision underscores the need for absolute clarity when drafting settlement agreements. Where an agreement concerns duties and liabilities connected to third‑party services while work continues, each party must, from the wording, be certain about the exact responsibilities they will carry in respect of those third parties and the circumstances in which they arise, as a consequence of the settlement drafting. Precision avoids costly misunderstandings and disputes over allocation of risk. What was the background? Port of Aberdeen (the defender and employer) appointed Dragados (the pursuer and contractor) to design, manage, and construct a harbour extension under the NEC3 Engineering and Construction Contract. Dragados then engaged Ove Arup & Partners Ltd ( Arup) as a design sub‑consultant pursuant to the ‘ Arup Existing...

In this issue: Standard form contracts Defects Consultants on construction projects Planning Procurement Construction industry news Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Construction trackers No Weekly Highlights on 24 April 2025 Standard form contracts JCT sets out intention to launch new Target Cost Contract at Parliamentary Reception JCT has set out plans to launch its new Target Cost Contract, part of the JCT 2024 Edition, at the annual Construction Industry Parliamentary Reception on 13 June 2025. The suite comprises a main contract, a sub-contract and guides, aimed at projects that adopt a target cost with arrangements to share any difference. Payment will be based on an 'allowable cost', a 'contract fee' and, where relevant, a 'difference share'. JCT is also producing online resources to help users with...

The Civil Justice Council ( CJC) The Civil Justice Council ( CJC), which advises the government and the judiciary on civil justice and procedure in England and Wales, recommended in a report on 9 April 2025 that enforcement of unpaid judgments across all civil courts should be brought under a single court. Geoffrey Vos, the Master of the Rolls, said civil enforcement in England and Wales has long been overly complex and unwieldy, noting an obvious need for rationalisation and modernisation, yet it has perhaps always been put in the 'too difficult' box. As head of civil justice and chair of the CJC, Vos said the council has concluded the present system cannot continue and that more must be done to minimise cost and delay. The enforcement working group was asked to consider how enforcing judgments could be made more effective and...

In this issue: JCT contracts Adjudication Arbitration Insurance in construction Legal technology trends report—2025 Litigation International construction contracts Construction industry news Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Construction trackers JCT contracts JCT Framework Agreement 2024—what’s changed? In March 2025, the Joint Contracts Tribunal formally issued the 2024 iteration of its Framework Agreement ( FA 2024) alongside its accompanying guide. This piece examines FA 2024 through the lens of the Procurement Act 2023, which applies to covered procurements initiated on or after 24 February 2025. Authored by Priya Kale ( Associate) and Andrew Millross ( Consultant) of Anthony Collins. See News Analysis: JCT Framework Agreement 2024—what’s changed? Adjudication Assignment and adjudication—contractor’s claim against employer’s assignee fails ( Grove Construction v Bagshot Manor) In Grove Construction ( London) Ltd v Bagshot Manor Ltd [2025] EWHC 591 ( TCC), the TCC declined to enforce an adjudicator’s award obtained by the contractor against the employer’s assignee. The court concluded that the...