Legal Comment – Page 60
-
CommentParty wall disputes: The end of the party
When a claimant drops a claim, they become liable to pay the defendant’s costs in party wall cases. But the Court of Appeal has recently issued guidance on when the courts can ignore this
-
CommentWalter Lilly vs Mackay: A curate’s egg
Walter Lilly vs Mackay grabbed headlines and produced a lengthy judgement. But exceptional cases should not set general precedents in law
-
CommentArchitects Registration Board: Know your place
An architect has been struck off for getting into debt. But is this really ‘professional misconduct’ to anyone other than the Lord Snootys of the profession?
-
CommentSSIs: Beware the newts
Sites of special scientific interest can be a major barrier to development - even if you have planning permission. Here’s what to look out for
-
CommentLegal brief: Do architects certificates operate as contracts?
A decision by Mr Justice Akenhead in a recent case provides some clarity
-
CommentWillmott Dixon vs Newlon: A case in points
Tony Bingham’s column on the recent Willmott Dixon vs Newlon Housing dispute focused on procedural objections - but there’s an awful lot more to the case than that
-
CommentWind farms: Second generation
A lot of lessons have been learned about the technical side of building wind farms. But what about contracts? Lindy Patterson looks at how things have changed in the last decade
-
CommentProfessional negligence dispute: On the rocks
When a judge blocked a £3m award to whisky maker Whyte Mackay, he questioned whether a professional negligence dispute should have come to adjudication at all
-
CommentDoing business in Iraq: Tread carefully
A decade after the invasion of Iraq there are opportunities for UK firms in the country’s infrastructure sector. But they must be aware of the legal framework they will be working in
-
CommentStop kicking up a fuss
The lawyers in this case raised a number of clever, interesting technical objections. Which were quite rightly dismissed. Let’s just stick to the facts, eh?
-
CommentLegal brief: Changes to judicial review process
What do proposed changes to the judicial review system mean for planning and procurement decisions?
-
CommentLife on the high fees
Adjudicators were meant to deal with construction disputes ‘expeditiously and relatively inexpensively’. But the amount they charge is becoming increasingly hard to justify
-
CommentNEC3 contracts: The hole truth and nothing but
If only lawyers would get around to filling up the holes in the NEC3 contract
-
CommentCPC2013: Top form
We need a new form of contract for complex projects that encourages a more scientific approach to risk management. Step forward CPC2013 …
-
CommentLegal brief: Human rights vs adjudication
A decision by the Scottish Courts on Whyte MacKay Ltd vs Blyth and Blyth Consulting Engineers sets an interesting precedent
-
CommentLegal brief: Multiple disputes?
Willmott Dixon Housing Limited vs Newlon Housing Trust leads to an interesting development in adjudication law
-
CommentLeap of faith
Despite what the Court of Appeal decided recently, isn’t a doctrine of good faith what the industry desperately needs?
-
CommentDirect payment clauses: Caught in the middle
An employer that gives itself the power to pay subcontractors direct if the main contractor does not, may find itself acting as a referee between two warring parties
-
CommentDoing without lawyers
More people than ever are choosing to conduct their own construction case without using a lawyer. Fine, but it calls for a more hands-on approach from the referee
-
CommentBeware restrictive covenants
Restrictive covenants can deal a fatal blow to a developer’s plans. So make sure you understand what effect a convenant will have on the development before you take the plunge