March 2016 In this issue we feature construction professionals with two articles highlighting the risks associated with providing professional services and the standards society expects, and the law demands, of professionals, and a further article highlighting the importance of selecting, instructing and supervising expert witnesses. The articles are timely as design, engineering and quantity surveying services will be captured by the Construction Contracts Act 2002 in relation to contracts entered into from 1 September 2016. We also look at circumstances in which parties will be prevented from referring the ‘same or substantially the same’ dispute to adjudication; payments made pursuant to a direct deed may be deemed voidable; retentions under the spotlight in the UK; recent developments in exclusion and limitation clauses in construction contracts; and more.
CONTENTS
- An expert horror story: Van Oord UK Limited and SICIM Roadbridge Limited v Allseas UK Limited [2015] EWHC 3074 (TCC)
- The “same or substantially the same” dispute: further Court of Appeal guidance
- Architect found negligent in failing to follow client’s instructions – a lesson in communication
- Exclusion and limitation clauses in construction contracts – recent developments
- Sanson v Ebert
- Retentions under the spotlight
- With friends like these…Burgess v Lejonvarn: a parable for construction professionals
- Case in Brief BSC Construction Ltd v Withers [2015] NZHC 1988
CONTENTS
- Court review of an arbitrator’s preliminary jurisdictional ruling: de novo or appellate review?
- Retentions maxed out
- Case in Brief: Adjudicator’s determination quashed – Anderson and Anor v Swindells & Anor
- Expert determination clauses – when will they be enforceable to prevent Court proceedings?
- Don’t get stuck in the penalty box: the world post-Makdessi
- Sentencing trends under new penalty regime
- Holding parties to their bargain: the Supreme Court enforces a ‘no oral variation clause’
- Some clarity on ‘no oral variation’ clauses