Legal views – Page 100
-
CommentLeave them judges alone
When a judge in a notorious Scottish murder trial dismissed the case, he was publicly criticised by the lord advocate, who was herself publicly criticised by the lord justice general. There’s a lesson for us all here …
-
CommentIts own worst enemy
The government relies on the PFI to deliver its improvements to public services. So why is it planning to wreck the systems that protect its delicate cash flow mechanism?
-
CommentIt ain’t necessarily so
If a client presented with a payment certificate hasn’t paid up 14 days later, the dispute begins on day 15, right? Wrong. As this Scottish case demonstrates, you need to apply a little common sense
-
CommentWhat are words worth?
You might not expect a member of Russia’s super-rich to speak the same language as a British builder. But when it came to deciding if the oral agreement they had was a binding contract, it was the English court that had the final word
-
CommentAkenhead becomes TCC judge
Barrister Robert Akenhead takes on role as judge at the Technology and Construction Court
-
CommentA house up a well-known creek
If your home played host to the contents of your neighbours’ toilets 17 times in eight years, you might expect the law to offer you some redress. Remarkably, as one London householder found out, it does nothing of the sort
-
CommentThere is no alternative
It is tempting to pronounce that lawyers should stay out of adjudication and let construction types untangle disputes. But too many arguments can be decided fairly only with specialist legal expertise
-
Comment
Dayworks document revised by RICS and Construction Confederation
New document outlining dayworks in building contracts is launched this month
-
CommentKiss and tell
The only people who love contracts are lawyers. For everybody else – the plasterers, the foremen, the managers – they’re just long, fuzzy words that bear no relationship to how they do their work. ‘Keep it short and simple’ should be the first rule of a legislator
-
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