Heavy snow is forecast around the country over the weekend with up to 30 cm expected on higher ground. While this may bring delight to children whose schools are closed, if you are an employer under a building contract, you may be wary of contractors seeking to blame delay on the current weather and claiming the extra cost of those delays under the terms of the relevant building contract.
A recent publication from the Health and Safety Executive will help local authorities and schools understand what duties they have to identify and manage asbestos in schools.
Mr Justice Akenhead has held in the case of Walter Lilly and Company Limited v Mackay and DMW [2012] EWHC 649 (TCC) that advice given to clients by claims consultants is not covered by legal professional privilege or legal advice privilege, even if that advice was given by solicitors or barristers engaged by those claims consultants.
In this month's edition we highlight the following items of interest:
- Bribery Act 2010: Ministry of Justice consultation on draft guidance
- Liquidated damages: High Court holds that a "commercially justifiable" clause was not a penalty and was enforceable
- Revisions to the Technology and Construction Court Guide
- Electronic disclosure of documents in litigation - new Practice Direction
- Consolidated Building Regulations to come into force on 1 October
- New agreement to improve health and safety on construction sites
- International Chamber of Commerce issues revised Incoterms
In this edition we highlight the following recent developments of interest:
- Extensions of time: causation, concurrent delay events and critical path analysis
- "Best endeavours", "reasonable endeavours" and "all reasonable but commercially prudent endeavours" - is there a difference?
- Adjudicator bias?
- Retention of title clause ineffective where contract allowed "revolving stock" sales
- Procure 21+ finally launched
- Failure to finalise contract terms resulted in unlimited liability.
In this month's digest we highlight the following developments of interest:
- Contract management: National Audit Office Report on the performance of hospital PFI projects
- Professional negligence: Overvaluation not negligent despite errors
- Construction Projects: Recovering costs and losses from professional advisers
- Time limit for making claim for loss and expense held to be a condition precedent.
- Entire agreement clause did not prevent rectification
- Why you should question offers which seem too good to be true
- Withdrawal of Part 36 offer
- 74 hours delay in delivering Decision made adjudicator's Decision unenforceable
- The importance of complying with contractual notice provisions
In this month's digest we highlight the following developments of interest:
- Contract formation: "Subject to contract" and contractual intention
- Credit crunch causes loss of profits claim to fail
- Main contractor liable for subcontractor's failure to put in place and implement safe systems
- Inadequate warning did not oust the warranty of fitness for purpose
- Quantifying whole life carbon dioxide emissions of buildings
- Severability and enforcement of adjudicators' decisions
- Arbitration: Will an application for an extension of time for service of a defence in court proceedings amount to a "step in the proceedings"?
In
Yuanda (UK) Co Ltd v W W Gear Construction Ltd [2010] EWHC 720 (TCC), the Technology and Construction Court ("TCC") made important decisions on whether multi-party joinder was possible in adjudication proceedings and on "Tolent" costs clauses.
The High Court decision in Shell Egypt West Manzala GMBH and anor v Dana Gas Egypt Ltd (formerly Centurion Petroleum Corporation) is a reminder that parties to a contract should be careful when deciding the grounds on which to terminate a contract and when drafting termination notices.