​Welcome to our December 2022 Newsletter.

There have been so many matters going on in the world in 2022 and it is clearly a time of great change, but in the Construction Industry the ever present backdrop of disputes continues to exist.

We therefore felt that it would be a good opportunity to provide a brief round-up of some of the more significant and interesting construction related cases that have gone through the courts since our last Newsletter in September of this year.

We hope that you enjoy it.​

Welcome to our September 2022 Newsletter.

There have been so many matters going on in the world in 2022 and it is clearly a time of great change, but in the Construction Industry the ever present backdrop of disputes continues to exist.

We therefore felt that it would be a good opportunity to provide a brief round-up of some of the more significant and interesting construction related cases that have gone through the courts so far this year.

We hope that you enjoy it.

​Welcome to our April 2021 Newsletter. The new normal has been with us for over 12 months. Amongst the good news is that the pubs (outdoor seating only), hairdressers and shops have now reopened.

​Aqua Leisure International Limited v Benchmark Leisure Limited [2020] EWHC 3511 (TCC)

Here the TCC dealt with a summary judgment application by Aqua Leisure International Limited (Aqua) seeking to enforce an adjudicator’s decision dated 24 July 2017 (the “Adjudicator’s Decision”) related to an interim payment dispute.​

Welcome to our March Newsletter. We hope that you find it interesting.

A recent relatively simple Technology and Construction Court case between a Plastering Firm and a Drylining Firm [RGB Plastering Limited v Tawe Drylining and Plastering Limited [2020] EWHC 3028 (TCC)] raised the relatively complicated issue of waiver and/or estoppel.

It is quite common for people to say that they did something or agreed to something, which they later view as being detrimental to them, because they were put under some form of economic duress at the time of doing or agreeing to the event in question. The event could be, for example, the signing up to an ‘unfavourable’ final account agreement, agreeing not to pursue further claims, or agreeing to disadvantageous contract terms. However, will the defence of economic duress hold any water?

​When enforcing Adjudicator’s Decisions in Court, there are two alternative approaches, either by issuing proceedings under Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) Part 7 or under CPR Part 8.

CPR Part 7 is the conventional method of starting Court proceedings, and is the usual method of attempting to obtain summary judgment of an Adjudicator’s Decision under a modified and shortened Court procedure.

A claimant may use the CPR Part 8 procedure where it seeks the Court’s decision on a question which is unlikely to involve a substantial dispute of fact.

We are often asked, “What is the difference between ‘Assignment’ and ‘Novation’?”.

A recent TCC Court case (Energy Works (Hull) Limited v MW High Tech Projects UK Limited [2020] EWHC 2537 (TCC)), set out a very useful summary of the legal principles relating to ‘Assignment’ and to ‘Novation’. These legal principles are summarised below.