Dec 2017

In this issue we feature the Singapore Mataban case where the court confirms an adjudicator’s decision to disregard an invalid payment response. We also look at the issue of non-conforming cladding that became notorious with the Grenfell Tower fire. Rebecca Taverner and Matthew Taylor discuss the importance of clarity when drafting guarantees and performacne bonds for international structure projects. Also John Walton explains how the Malmaison test can be applied in the interpretation of concurrent delay under the New Zealand standard NZS3910:2013. And among other articles of great interest, Aaron Lloyd an Fiona Tregonning comment on a recent NZ corruption case upheld by the Court of Appeal related to Auckland roading contracts.

In our double edition of ‘Case in Brief’ Sam Thyne comments on the recent GPW Investments Ltd v Dreamhome Construction Group Ltd where he illustrates the interaction between the payment regime under the Construction Contracts Act 2002 and the statutory demand regime under the Companies Act 1993. Also the scope of architects’ duty towards their clients is discussed in Hardwicke’s analysis of UK case Riva Properties Limited & ORs v Foster + Partners Limited.

  • Singapore court confirms limited scope for adjudication set aside
  • Release of Interim Senate Report into non-conforming cladding
  • Case In Brief Double Edition
    • GPW Investments Ltd v Dreamhome Construction Group Ltd [2017] NZHC 2057 facilitator of timely payments, or draconian regime?
    • Riva Properties Limited & Ors v Foster + Partners Limited [2017] EWHC 2574
  • Spot the difference: gurantee or on-demand bond?
  • Construction: Adjudication – unilateral withdrawal
  • Concurrent Delay: Parties free to agree
  • Auckland roading corruption conviction upheld by Court of Appeal

  • 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
Skip to content