Legal Comment – Page 99
-
CommentHappy ever after
Main contractors and subcontractors make all kinds of rash promises during the courting stage. Then they quarrel. A new toolkit from the National Specialist Contractors Council aims to keep things sweet to the end
-
CommentDo you have breakdown cover?
Rolls-Royce didn’t take out joint-names insurance to cover construction of its new plant. When a leaking pipe caused £400,000 of damage, it insisted the policy wouldn’t have covered negligence. Not everyone agreed
-
CommentMind your language, minister
The government’s latest attempts at spelling out the Construction Act’s payment rules are a triumph of impenetrable gobbledegook. It’s time for some plain English
-
CommentAn exemplary disaster
Fail to renew your public liability insurance at your peril, as this dreadful tale of a family-run electrical firm, a little old lady’s bungalow and some (possibly) poorly rigged festoon cabling proves
-
CommentThe battle of Easingwold
Margaret Tomlinson wanted an extension for her terraced home. Okay, said the builder, that will be £19,500, please. It was downhill all the way after that, ending up in a trial that lasted six-and-a-half days…
-
CommentJCT sleeps with the fishes
Standard forms are supposed to make things easy, but that wasn’t exactly the builder’s experience in Reinwood vs Brown. Maybe it’s time the whole lot were taken for a ride …
-
CommentNo more boobs
As the Chinese say, a man who makes a mistake and does not correct it makes another mistake. This should be born in mind by the DTI in its present review of the Construction Act
-
CommentGuaranteed trouble
Here’s an everyday story of a new home, its disgruntled owners, their worried insurer, its unhappy builder and a legal case that didn’t go the way it was supposed to
-
CommentNothing if not critical
The epic struggle between Mirant and Arup over the Sual power station has finally ended in a complete victory for Arup. The battle turned on the what delays were and weren’t on the critical path
-
CommentNobody’s forcing you to do it
The Construction Act deals a knock-out blow to adjudicators who try to hold on to the award until they get paid. But if the parties don’t like that rule, they don’t have to adjudicate at all
-
CommentLet the supplier beware
You may have taken every precaution to make sure a contract is watertight but a consumer can claim a term isn’t fair if it puts them at a significant disadvantage
-
CommentCircumstances change cases
The case of Dundas vs Wimpey, which has now been resolved in favour of Wimpey after a 3:2 decision in the House of Lords, shows that the payment clauses in the Construction Act are not set in stone
-
CommentHell is a very small place
This is the story of a common-or-garden domestic extension that took years to complete and resulted in a savage battle between the architect and the client that ended up in the High Court
-
CommentHere’s to Tony
Our legal eagles offer up their judicious verdicts on the Blair era, with the other TB, Tony Bingham, finding himself surprisingly misty eyed at the departure of a Labour PM
-
CommentYes, folks, it’s the fab follies
A client bent on scuppering an adjudication can whistle up all sorts of loony tunes – including favourites such as ‘There Ain’t No Contract in Writing’, ‘Git that Adjudicator Outta Here’ and ‘Here Come the Judge’. Altogether now…
-
CommentBully beef
Did you see any of the BBC TV drama Life on Mars? Sam Tyler, modern day detective, was accidentally catapulted back to 1973, in the same job and surrounded by Sweeney-style coppers of 35 years ago.
-
CommentThe percentage game
Remember Ian McGlinn? He was last seen in the High Court suing everyone in sight after ordering the demolition of his Jersey dream home. Here he is again, still in court, trying to get the other parties to pay his legal costs
-
CommentSomeone to watch over me
At long last, the Lord Chief Justice has mentioned the unmentionable and laid on a 24-hour judicial helpline that will help stressed-out dispute deciders sleep more soundly at night
-
CommentIan McGlinn vs everybody else
You build your multimillion-pound dream home, but there are some defects. So you leave it empty for five years, then tear it down and sue everyone in sight, apart from the builder, which has gone bust. Do you win?
-
CommentFouled by your own side
If you hire somebody to do something, then prevent them doing it, then you can’t sue them for breach of contract. Let’s see how this fundamental rule applies to Wembley