All articles by Rupert Choat – Page 3
-
CommentLook and learn: Vision vs Lancsville
Even though adjudication is well established, there are still some lessons that can be learned without trying too hard – as Vision Homes vs Lancsville makes clear
-
CommentAsking for the moon: Construction Act changes
The Specialist Engineering Contractors’ Group wants payment security on demand included in the new Construction Act. It should not – and will not – become law
-
CommentYou asked me for a contribution: Are net contribution clauses fair?
A judge recently said net contribution clauses were ‘fair and reasonable’, but clients have good reason to feel unhappy with the way they work in practice
-
CommentLet's get it right this time: Construction Act changes
The government looks set to oppose any amendments to their changes to the Construction Act, but some of these weren’t fit for purpose anyway
-
CommentAre you stuck in one-way traffic? Liquidated damages and the Construction Act
Rupert Choat Developers can’t rely on the Construction Act when they claim liquidated damages, but the contractor can when it reclaims them. How unfair!
-
News
Is it worth it?
How common are the problems that the reform of the Construction Act addresses? Some are common, others not so.
-
CommentHell hath no fury: public sector frameworks
Scorned bidders are increasingly refusing to take rejection lying down, which means wrongly tendered public frameworks may be set aside
-
Comment
Wobbly contractor syndrome: paying subcontractors directly
Our third article on the legal implications of the downturn looks at what happens when a main contractor risks going bust and a client wants to pay its subbies directly
-
-
CommentCJP Builders vs William Verry: Some verry fine distinctions
This case highlights the importance of adjudicators giving parties the chance to be heard. But in other cases they are right to disregard submissions
-
CommentGalliford Try vs Mott MacDonald: A sense of loss
If a consultant causes a contractor economic damage, does it have to compensate the wrong party even if there is no contract between them?
-
NewsAt last a draft Construction Bill, but at what cost?
The government has revealed amendments to the Construction Act, but its flawed consultation process could undermine the proposals
-
CommentThe accidental criminal
New trading regulations that target misleading marketing are there to catch the rogues. But their remit is so broad you could inadvertently commit an offence, too
-
Comment
Reinwood vs Brown: You again?
The highest court in the land has just given its second decision on the Construction Act. Never mind the parties, it’s two wins out of two for the JCT…
-
Comment
Riddle me this
If you see something going wrong on a building site, do you have a legal duty to tell someone? This is a simple question with no simple answer, says Rupert Choat. But here’s the latest thinking …
-
Comment
Getting our act together
The latest round of the Construction Act review has finally arrived, and although it provides useful additions to the previous proposals, there are some telling omissions
-
Comment
The case for suspenders
It was thought that the Construction Act said any client that failed to issue a withholding notice five days before the final date of payment was obliged to pay the contractor in full. But that was before three law lords said otherwise …
-
Comment
Concentrating their minds
Tony Bingham claims that suing an expert witness is a ‘rock solid no-go’, but if your expert is negligent, shouldn’t they suffer the consequences?
-
Comment
Was it worth it?
A claimant who rejects a defendant's settlement offer had better be sure it can win a bigger sum at trial, otherwise the legal costs could make it all pointless
-
CommentDevelopers 1, subbies 0
Contractors and their clients should cheer the latest action from the Construction Act review. Those further down the supply chain, however, might face a drubbing
- Previous Page
- Page1
- Page2
- Page3
- Page4
- Next Page