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 Sole traders, informal partnerships and outdated partnership deeds are common.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
Originally published on the BCLP Website. England and Wales Adjudication Adjudication in England and Wales was brought in by the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. It has been widely praised and hailed as a major success for giving parties to construction contracts a quick, efficient and cost-effective form of resolving disputes. The intention of the legislation (alongside minimum standards for interim payment arrangements in construction contracts) was to sustain cash flow across the sector and thereby stop contractors and, in particular, subcontractors from being deprived of funds in the industry. Nevertheless, the interaction between the statutory frameworks of adjudication and insolvency has, since adjudication’s inception over 25 years ago, produced a considerable body of case law. A party to a construction contract may refer any dispute in respect of that contract to adjudication at any time. The result is a decision that is...
Barclays Bank plc v VEB. RF [2024] EWHC 2981 ( Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? The ruling confirms, as earlier cases have said, that satisfaction of the statutory conditions in section 32(2) of the Arbitration Act is a fact‑specific enquiry to be answered by reference to the case’s own circumstances. This was an unusual example where those conditions were met; the court observed that only a small number of section 32 applications have ever succeeded. A decisive factor was the parties’ agreement that the dispute had to be resolved with exceptional urgency. In that context, speed was better served by the court, rather than the tribunal, determining the tribunal’s jurisdiction. Although on this occasion the court was prepared to exercise its supervisory role over the arbitration, the decision highlights its general reluctance to intervene and stresses that any section 32 bid must clear a...
What is emergency arbitration? Broadly speaking, urgent relief in arbitration is typically available only after the arbitral tribunal has been formed. This creates a window before constitution when a party may need urgent measures yet struggle to secure them in the arbitration itself—for instance, if the counterparty attempts to dissipate assets or transfer funds across borders prior to the tribunal being in place. In those scenarios, parties might conclude that their sole recourse is an application to a national court for such relief, where that route exists. For insight on the scope of interim and emergency remedies in courts at principal arbitration seats, see: AA 1996—interim and emergency measures—arbitration— England and Wales—overview. That said, parties to international construction contracts commonly adopt arbitration rules that include mechanisms for appointing emergency arbitrators before the tribunal is constituted to avoid this risk. The process is...
In this issue: Building Safety Procurement in construction Arbitration Litigation Dispute Resolution Assignment Standard form construction contracts Construction industry news Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Construction trackers Building Safety MHCLG publishes response to Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 report MHCLG has issued its response to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry’s Phase 2 report (4 September 2024). The government has accepted all 58 recommendations, unveiling far-reaching reforms across construction, building and fire safety. From mid‑2025 it will release quarterly progress updates, alongside an annual report to Parliament. Delivery will be staged: Phase 1 (2025–2026) advances the existing regulatory reform programme; Phase 2 (2026–2028) will develop proposals to implement the recommendations and wider reforms, including legislative change; from 2028, MHCLG will concentrate on delivery. In parallel, a green paper sets out...
What has ‘gone live’? From 24 February 2025, PA 2023 has gone live, so the core provisions of the new UK public procurement regime now govern covered procurements. This spans public contracts let by central government, local authorities, and other public sector bodies for goods, services, and works above the applicable financial thresholds. For background reading, see Practice Note: Introduction to the Procurement Act 2023— PA 2023. How did we get here? Implementation followed an extensive journey, beginning with consultations under the previous government on post‑ Brexit reforms intended to streamline rules and enhance transparency. After parliamentary scrutiny and engagement with stakeholders, PA 2023 received Royal Assent on 26 October 2023, with a phased transition promised so contracting authorities and suppliers could adapt. A go‑live first set for 28 October 2024 moved to 24 February 2025 to allow for implementing legislation, system updates, and a...
Baker Hughes Saudi Arabia Company Ltd v Dynamic Industries, Incorporated & others Case 23-30827, US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit What are the practical implications of this case? Central to the dispute is whether choosing a set of arbitral rules in an arbitration clause should be read as selecting a forum when no venue is expressly named. The Second, Fourth, and Eleventh Circuits have concluded that picking rules signals forum selection, invoking the canon expressio unius est exclusio alterius, whereas the Ninth Circuit has, without deciding the point, questioned that premise. The Fifth Circuit, likewise, declined to resolve the matter and voiced comparable reservations. Consequently, the court suggested that a split among circuits may ultimately crystallise if a circuit court squarely determines that adopting arbitral rules does not amount to choosing a forum. Turning to the discontinued DIFC- LCIA regime, the court noted that...
Water and Sewerage Authority of Trinidad and Tobago v Waterworks Ltd [2025] UKPC 9 What are the practical implications of this case? This decision clarifies how clause 19.6(c) of the FIDIC 1999 Conditions of Contract (and likewise clause 18.5(c) in the 2017 editions, which is the same) should be read when assessing, after a termination for convenience, whether any other Cost or liability was reasonably incurred by contractors anticipating completion of the Works. The Board of the Privy Council concluded that a contractor’s obligation to pay cancellation fees to a third‑party equipment supplier did not fall within clause 19.6(c), as those liabilities were not reasonably incurred. The outcome was tough yet fair on the facts. Moreover, the judgment hints, at paragraphs 40 to 45, that if the contractor had advanced a sound justification for entering into the agreement and accepting the...
In this issue: Building safety JCT contracts Procurement in construction Scots law Tort law Litigation Contract law Alternative dispute resolution Construction industry news Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content New Q& As New Webinar Construction trackers Building safety Building Safety Act 2022—application of the ‘just and equitable’ test for remediation contribution orders ( Grey GR v Edgewater) Grey GR Ltd Partnership v Edgewater ( Stevenage) [2025] Lexis Citation 276 saw the FTT examine section 124 of the Building Safety Act 2022, a provision enabling remediation contribution orders where the tribunal finds it ‘just and equitable’. In this piece, Marcus Birch, a consultant at BCLP, reviews the decision, delivering long-awaited clarity on how the tribunal intends to apply the ‘just and equitable’ threshold in fire safety disputes featuring numerous...
Grey GR Ltd Partnership v Edgewater ( Stevenage) and others CAM/26UH/ HYI/2023/0003 Background Vista Tower in Stevenage became the focus of the government’s inaugural successful application for a remedial order against a building owner under BSA 2022, s 123. During those proceedings, the owner (‘ Grey’) sought a remediation contribution order ( RCO) targeting the original developer and a further 95 respondents treated as ‘associated persons’ owing to common directorships within the relevant 2017–2022 period. Grey requested that the respondents cover both historic and prospective expenditure to rectify fire safety defects, assessed at over £20 million. The decision The dispute presented five key questions: the proper interpretation of ‘defect’ under BSA 2022, s 120(2) the requisite threshold for a ‘building safety risk’ under BSA 2022, s 120(5) whether an order should issue to a well-resourced applicant who knew of the fire safety issues on...
Arthur Simmers against Green Cat Renewables Ltd plus another [2025] CSOH 11 What was the background?...
What are the practical implications of this case? EE Ltd versus Virgin Mobile Telecoms Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 70...
Firdous v Ecclesall Design Ltd and others [2025] EWHC 90 ( TCC) What was the background? The claimant alleged that several defendants — including a construction contractor ( Fifth Defendant), a development company ( First Defendant), and an insurer ( Fourth Defendant) — were responsible for losses after a retaining wall failed during building works at a residential property said to be owned by the claimant The Amended Particulars of Claim were criticised for lacking precision, not clearly setting out the case against each defendant, and failing to properly connect the alleged breaches with the losses claimed The defendants complained about uncertainty, insufficient particularisation, and breaches of procedural requirements, including non‑compliance with the Pre‑ Action Protocol for Construction & Engineering Disputes The claimant sought permission to re‑amend the Particulars of Claim; the First, Fourth and Fifth Defendants applied for...
In this issue: Building Safety Standard form construction contracts Alternative dispute resolution Litigation Arbitration Construction industry news Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Construction trackers Building Safety HSE launches call for evidence for review of Approved Document A The HSE has opened a call for evidence to inform its review of Approved Document A, which sets out statutory guidance on complying with Building Regulations for structural safety. The exercise seeks input on parts of the guidance that would benefit from greater clarity, research, or further development. Although the review is intended to span the full document, the central priority is to remove references to the first‑generation Eurocode Standards, which will be withdrawn on 30 March 2028, and to update it in line with the...
In a report released on 6 February 2025, the Magic Circle firm set out ways to deploy AI in arbitration, spanning legal research, document review, drafting, and summarising, plus argument comparison, predictive analytics, transcription, and case management. Natalia Zibibbo, a lawyer at the firm, noted that AI-driven platforms are appearing that could transform legal workflows, and that, when applied thoughtfully, such tools can markedly boost efficiency in arbitration, delivering time and cost-saving gains that both arbitrators and counsel are keen to harness. At the same time, Freshfields urged restraint regarding security and transparency, calling for stronger oversight following the rise of generative AI and large language models, so as to head off risks such as hallucinations — AI presenting invented authorities and legal reasoning as facts......
WH Holding Ltd v E20 Stadium LLP [2025] EWHC 140 ( Comm) What was the background? WH Holding Ltd ( WHH) and E20 Stadium LLP ( E20) were counterparties to a concession agreement (the Agreement) concerning the operation of the London Stadium situated in the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park The Agreement included an anti‑embarrassment clause requiring WHH to pay E20 a Stadium Premium Amount if specified transactions by WHH’s shareholders occurred On 10 November 2021, WHH’s shareholders entered into arrangements to sell shares and to grant options connected with WHH’s ownership of West Ham United Football Club A dispute then arose between WHH and E20 as to whether, in light of those transactions, a Stadium Premium Amount became payable pursuant to the anti‑embarrassment clause The parties referred that dispute to an expert for determination in accordance with the Agreement’s expert determination clause, which provided that the expert’s decision would be final and...
In this issue: Fire safety Contract law Projects Construction industry news Lex Talk®Construction: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Construction trackers Fire safety Remediation contribution orders: Grey GR Limited Partnership v Edgewater ( Stevenage) Ltd and others In Grey GR Limited Partnership v Edgewater ( Stevenage) Ltd [2025] Lexis Citation 276, the First-tier Tribunal ( Property Chamber) concluded that making remediation contribution orders under the Building Safety Act 2022 was fair and appropriate against several related companies, covering the costs of rectifying fire safety defects at Vista Tower. Those defects were, for the most part, traceable to the original developer and its associates. To secure the funds required for the remedial works, the tribunal imposed joint and several liability for a stated amount exceeding £13.26 million. Keep an eye out for our commentary on this decision. Contract law Amendments in retrospect— Repair or replace? ( R v Revenue and Customs...
Willmott Dixon Holdings Ltd v Karakusevic Carson Architects Llp [2024] EWHC 3449 ( TCC) What was the background? The claimant, Willmott Dixon Holdings Ltd, was the parent of a Willmott Dixon company that acted as the design and build contractor for Bridport House in Hackney The first defendant, Karakusevic Carson Architects LLP ( KCA), was appointed as project architect for Bridport House, with Practical Completion certified on 31 August 2011 The claim form was filed on 30 August 2023, a day before the potential expiry of the limitation period The claim concerns alleged defects in the residential scheme, which the employer (the London Borough of Hackney) says stem from KCA’s negligence and/or contractual breaches Proceedings were also commenced against Peter Brett Associates LLP and Toureen Contractors Ltd KCA applied to strike out the claim form, arguing it was an abuse of...
What is the CNI regime? Critical National Infrastructure ( CNI) encompasses the physical and digital assets, sites, and networks that keep a nation running, underpinning the health, safety, security, and economic prosperity of its people. In the UK, the basis for CNI rests on a mix of long-standing government programmes, statutory duties, and policy directives intended to protect pivotal industries. Together, they support the functioning of the country and the well-being of its population. Collectively, these elements are indispensable to national operations and the welfare of citizens. The regime arose from the imperative to shield vital services and infrastructure central to national security, economic resilience, and public protection—a subject under review by many states from the mid-twentieth century. That imperative sharpened towards the close of the twentieth century as threats from terrorism, espionage, and cyberattacks...
In this issue: Building safety Adjudication Payment Procurement Tort Infrastructure projects Environmental issues Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Building safety High Court identifies a ‘building safety risk’ that could lead to a ‘building liability order’ under the Building Safety Act 2022 and enables the RTM company to recover damages for leaseholders (381 Southwark Park Road RTM & Various Leaseholders v Click St Andrews). 381 Southwark Park Road RTM & Various Leaseholders v Click St Andrews [2024] EWHC 3179 ( TCC) is the first High Court ruling to find that a developer’s defective works gave rise to a ‘relevant liability’ due to a ‘building safety risk’ within section 130(3)(b) of the Building Safety Act 2022 ( BSA 2022), clearing the way for the claimant right to manage company ( RTM Co) to apply, at a...
Placefirst Construction Ltd versus Car Construction ( North East) Ltd [2025] EWHC 100 ( TCC) What was the background?...
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
