By Kate Holland

The English High Court caused concern earlier this year when it held that an adjudicator had breached natural justice by holding himself bound by a previous adjudicator’s findings. Now, in Sudlows Ltd v Global Switch Estates 1 Limited,[1] the Court of Appeal has put the lid back on the worm can by overturning that decision. The Court of Appeal also set out welcome guidance for parties, practitioners and adjudicators on the sticky area of serial adjudications.

Introduction: Sudlows v Global serial adjudication saga

Sudlows Ltd v Global Switch Estates 1 Ltd is the latest episode in a series of adjudications and court enforcements between an employer (Global) and an electrical contractor (Sudlows).[2]

Global entered a £14.8 million contract with Sudlows to carry out extensive electrical works at its London premises, including building a new electricity substation and installing high voltage cables (Contract).

The Contract has been beset by disputes. This article concerns Adjudications 5 and 6, which both concerned disputes over costs and delays caused by ductwork and cabling issues.

The “pay now argue later” principle and the rule against re-adjudication

Section 108 of England and Wales’ Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 allows a party to a construction contract to refer any dispute arising under the contract to adjudication. The adjudicator’s decision is binding on the parties until the dispute is finally determined by legal proceedings, arbitration or by the parties’ agreement.

This “pay now argue later” regime seeks to provide a quick, temporarily binding answer to construction disputes which each party must comply with in order to maintain cash flow and keep projects moving forward rather than grinding to a halt. If a party disagrees with the adjudication outcome, they have to ‘pay up and put up’ for the time being, and challenge it later in court or arbitration.

But in some projects, the disputes just keep happening, leading to multiple adjudications about the same contract. In these ‘serial adjudications’, the facts and issues in a later dispute may overlap with those of an earlier dispute, requiring the later adjudicator to determine whether they are bound by the earlier findings.

In Sudlows v Global, the Court of Appeal succinctly observed the incongruity of serial adjudications with the purpose of construction adjudication, observing that it is harder to adhere to the principle of ‘pay now, argue later’ when you are constantly arguing now.[3]

The rule against re-adjudication provides that a later adjudicator cannot decide a dispute which is the same or substantially the same as a dispute that has already been decided in a previous adjudication.[4] Whether one dispute is substantially the same as another dispute is a question of fact and degree.[5]

Background – the ductwork and cabling issues

Under the Contract, Sudlows needed to install high voltage cables running from one side of Global’s premises to the other, across a main road. To enable this, Global had to install ductwork underneath the road. After Global completed the ductwork, Sudlows supplied and installed the cables and pulled them through the ductwork. However, one of the cables was damaged in the process.

Sudlows claimed that the cable had been damaged because the ductwork that Global had installed was defective and not fit for purpose. Sudlows refused to perform rectification works, or any other further works, unless Global paid for it.

Global denied there was anything wrong with its ductwork and claimed that the cable damage was caused either by defects in the cable that Sudlows had supplied or because of the way that Sudlows had installed the cables. Global claimed Sudlows was responsible for the delays and should pay for the rectification works at its own cost.

Global eventually engaged a different contractor to install new cables and run them through the ductwork. Global then instructed Sudlows to connect the new cables to the electrical system and energise them. Sudlows refused on the basis that the new cables were different to the cables Sudlows had selected and the installation method was unknown to Sudlows.

Sudlows applied for an extension of time (EOT) due to the delays caused by these ductwork and cabling issues. Global refused to grant the EOT or to accept responsibility for the cable damage, and claimed that Sudlows was responsible and unreasonably refusing to connect and energise the new cables.

Adjudication 5: First EOT – cable installation and energisation delays

The dispute was referred to adjudication. The parties agreed that the ductwork and cabling issue was the reason for the delays.

The main question to be decided was whose fault the cable damage was – did it happen because Global’s ductwork was defective, or had Sudlows damaged the cable themselves during the installation? This question was the focus of extensive factual and evidential investigation involving multiple expert technical witnesses.

The first adjudicator found in Sudlows’ favour and granted the first EOT. He found that Sudlows had not damaged the cable and that the way Sudlows had pulled the cables through the ductwork was adequate based on the information Global had given it.

On the technical evidence before him, he found that Global’s ductwork was defective and not fit for purpose and this had caused the damage to the cable, therefore Global was responsible for the delays. As a corollary, Sudlows’ refusal to energise the new cables was reasonable.

Aftermath of Adjudication 5: Further cable energisation and testing delays

Having lost Adjudication 5, Global had to engage another contractor to test and energise the new cables. This caused further delay to Sudlows’ practical completion. During this testing, Global obtained new evidence from the certification company which showed there had been nothing defective about its ductwork.

Sudlows sought a further EOT for the delays to practical completion while the testing and energisation work was being carried out by the third party contractor. Sudlows claimed this was a continuation of the delays due to the ductwork and cabling issues, which Adjudication 5 had already determined was Global’s fault. Sudlows also submitted a £12 million loss and expense claim. 

Global refused to grant the further EOT and voiced its disagreement with the outcome of Adjudication 5. It said the adjudicator had been wrong to find that Global’s ductwork was defective and should not have granted Sudlows the first EOT. This latest dispute led to Adjudication 6. 

Adjudication 6: Further EOT for the flow-on delays

Adjudication 6 was different to the Adjudication 5 dispute because it concerned a new application for a further EOT in respect of a different time period, as well as the wider issue of the new loss and expense claim.

However, there was an overlapping issue about who had been responsible for the ductwork and cabling issues that caused the delays. This had been determined in Adjudication 5 as being Global’s fault. Sudlows argued that a natural extension of that earlier finding was that Sudlows was now entitled to a further extension of time for the continuing delays.

Global accepted it was bound by the first EOT decision in Adjudication 5. However, in defending against this new further EOT claim, Global led the new technical certification evidence it had obtained which showed that its ductwork was not defective and therefore it was not responsible for the delay in respect of the further EOT.

Faced with disagreement between the parties on whether he was bound by the earlier adjudicator’s findings, the adjudicator in Adjudication 6 (later adjudicator) obtained the parties’ consent to provide his decision with findings in the alternative – an “if I am wrong” decision.

Adjudication 6: Primary decision

The later adjudicator found that he was bound by the Adjudication 5 findings that Global was to blame for the ductwork and cabling issues. On that basis, he found that Sudlows were correct and entitled to refuse to energise the new cables and that Global was responsible for any delays that had flowed from this issue. He granted Sudlows the further EOT and just under £1 million. 

Referring to the ruling in Carillion, he reasoned that he was bound by the earlier finding on the overlapping issue because it was an essential component or basis of the earlier adjudicator’s reasoning.[6]

Adjudication 6: Alternative finding

In his alternative finding, he said that if he was not bound by the earlier adjudicator’s findings, then based on the merits of the evidence before him (particularly Global’s new expert evidence about the ductwork), his finding would be that Sudlows had been responsible for the ductwork and cabling issues rather than Global, and therefore also that Sudlows’ refusal to energise the cables was unreasonable.

Under this alternative decision, Sudlows would not be entitled to the further EOT and would have to pay Global over £200,000.

High Court enforces the adjudicator’s alternative findings in favour of Global

Sudlows applied to the High Court to enforce the primary decision in Adjudication 6, which was in its favour.[7] Global resisted the enforcement on the basis that the later adjudicator had breached natural justice by wrongfully taking too narrow a view of his own jurisdiction and holding himself bound by the first adjudicator’s findings.

The High Court agreed with Global. It held the two disputes were not substantially the same due to the different circumstances and evidence. Adjudication 6 concerned an EOT for a different period of time and involved new and different evidence which was not in existence at the time of Adjudication 5.

It held that the later adjudicator had been wrong to find he was bound by the earlier findings and therefore his primary decision should not be enforced. Instead, the Court enforced his alternative findings in favour of Global.

Sudlows appealed the High Court’s decision to the Court of Appeal.

Court of Appeal: Overturns High Court’s decision and sets out guiding principles

The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s ruling and reinstated the adjudicator’s primary decision in favour of Sudlows. Although it acknowledged that this case was finely balanced, it made clear that the High Court’s decision was plainly wrong.

Serial adjudication principles

The Court of Appeal took the opportunity to set out three crystal clear overarching principles from the caselaw on jurisdiction and overlapping issues in serial adjudications.

As a general rule of thumb, the later decision should not lead to a result which would be fundamentally incompatible with the result of the earlier adjudication.


Principle 1: Purpose, speed, (temporary) finality and reality

The need for speed and the importance of temporary finality in adjudication means that subsequent adjudicators and courts faced with overlapping issues should take a robust and commonsense approach, not a complex analysis of circumstances, evidence and interpretations of case law.

The reality of the earlier adjudication decision is more important than the form and content of the narrow ‘decision’ itself.

Principle 2: Flexibility, common sense and fairness

Quietfield’s question of ‘fact and degree’ approach requires balancing, on a case by case basis, between preventing readjudication and not shutting out new claims or new defences. The answer should be the product of common sense and fairness.

Principle 3: Non-interference

Whether a later adjudicator is bound by previous findings on overlapping issues is a question to be determined by the later adjudicator. Courts should not interfere with that adjudicator’s jurisdiction decision unless it is clearly wrong.

Court of Appeal’s reasoning

  • The High Court’s ruling fell foul of the principles above and the purpose of construction adjudication, which is to provide a quick, temporary answer which ‘holds the ring’ until a dispute is determined by court proceedings or arbitration.
  • The High Court had wrongly interfered with the later adjudicator’s view that he was bound by the previous findings. There was nothing about the adjudicator’s reasoning or finding on jurisdiction that was clearly wrong to justify judicial interference.
  • The overlapping issue of who was responsible for the ductwork and cabling issues which led to the delays was clearly an essential component or basis of the earlier adjudicator’s reasoning (following Carillion).
  • The High Court’s ruling that the later adjudicator was not bound by the earlier adjudicator’s view on the overlapping issue ignored that essential component and produced a result which was fundamentally incompatible with the earlier adjudication decision.
  • The fact that the two disputes related to EOTs for different time periods was an artificial distinction in the circumstances. Although the period was different to the previous dispute, nothing else had changed and there was no new narrative or new reasons for the further delay.
  • The fact that new evidence had come into existence was irrelevant to whether the two disputes were substantially similar. There is a difference between a ‘dispute’ and the evidence which a party leads to support their position in that dispute.
  • The earlier adjudicator had taken the view that Global was responsible for the cabling and ductwork issues, so the later adjudicator was not entitled to re-investigate that. Therefore, the new evidence about the ductwork was irrelevant and inadmissible.
  • Even if the new evidence clearly showed that the earlier adjudicator had made an error of fact about the ductwork, Global was stuck with it and their only remedy was to challenge it in court or arbitration.


The High Court’s judgment had been met with concern among construction adjudication practitioners. It had been criticised for causing uncertainty, risking undermining the adjudication scheme, encouraging repeated challenges and generally being a backwards step for the industry.

The Court of Appeal’s decision to overturn that ruling will come as a welcome relief, and the rules and principles set out in this judgment provide welcome clarity and guidance for parties, advisors and adjudicators on how to deal with overlapping issues in serial adjudications.


[1] Sudlows Ltd v Global Estates 1 Limited [2023] EWCA 813.

[2] We previously covered a previous and separate High Court decision about an earlier episode in the Sudlows v Global adjudication series in issue 42 of BuildLaw.

[3] Sudlows (EWCA), above n 1, at [33].

[4] Paragraph 9(2) of the Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998.

[5] Quietfield Ltd v Vascroft Construction Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1737 at [47].

[6] Hyder Consulting v Carillion [2011] EWHC 1810.

[7] Sudlows Ltd v Global Switch Estates 1 Ltd [2022] EWHC 3319.

“Route to the decision” – Scottish court rejects challenge to adjudicator’s decision that did not expressly address a material line of defence

Written by Kate Holland In UK Grid Solutions Limited and Amey Power Services Limited v Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission PLC,[1] the unsuccessful party to an adjudication sought to resist enforcement on the grounds that 1) the adjudicator had failed to address a...

Asking a decision-maker to take a sneaky peek isn’t a strategically clever move: adjudicator’s decision held unenforceable due to breach of without prejudice rules

Written by Maria Cole A party (AZ) brought proceedings in the England and Wales Technology and Construction Court (Court) to enforce the decision of an adjudicator against the respondent (BY).[1] During the adjudication, AZ had placed without prejudice emails before...

Failed waterproofing causes a flood of costs

Written by Sam Dorne Legal battle over failed waterproofing comes to an end after plaintiffs prove their damages at the High Court in duty of care breach. Water water everywhere In the heart of Flat Bush, Auckland, stand the Nikau Apartments – a residential complex...

Mayor Brown is right about why public sector contracts go over time and over budget

Written by Rabin Rabindran and Derek Firth  In his opinion piece (NZ Herald 21 February 2024) Mayor Brown provides a number of reasons for these overruns.  They include an obsession with governance skills rather than a range of skills directly useful to the sector...

BuildLaw Issue 53

March 2024Download PDF   CONTENTS From the Editor BuildLaw in Brief A cat among pigeons Major changes to seismic building standards Failed waterproofing causes a flood of costs Asking a decisionmaker to take a sneaky peak isn’t a strategically clever...

High Court soundly dismisses judicial review of adjudication determinations but may inadvertently have put the cat among the pigeons

By Alexander Lyall In Sam Pemberton Civil Ltd v Robertson,[1] the High Court considered applications for judicial review of two related adjudication determinations. In dismissing the applications, the Court underscored some of the key functions of the Construction...

Technocratic payment regime not the priority under the Construction Contracts Act

Written by Alexander Lyall In Dem Home Ltd v New Gate Ltd[1] the High Court considered whether a payment claim had been validly served under the Construction Contracts Act 2002 (the CCA). The decision is an ever-important reminder that the CCA is designed to maintain...

Highly stressful circumstances: Court of Appeal assesses contract in earthquake insurance mess

Written by Alexander Lyall   The Court of Appeal (the Court) has issued a decision in a long-running dispute between a Christchurch homeowner and her insurance and legal advocates. Pfisterer v Claims Resolution Service Limited & Anor[1] contains a close look...

Kane v Venues NSW: The Handrail Tale

Written by Sam Dorne The case of Venues NSW v Kane [2023] NSWCA 192, involving a patron’s fall within the lower concourse of the western grandstand of the McDonald Jones Stadium in Newcastle, Australia, looks at a fundamental legal question surrounding the duty of...

How do you solve a problem like retentions?

Written by Kate Holland The use of retentions in construction contracts is culturally ingrained in the industry but it is increasingly seen as an outdated and unfair practice. In the UK, there have long been calls to abolish or regulate retentions, but little progress...

The “measured duty” to love thy neighbour: private nuisance and naturally occurring hazards

Written by Maria Cole A Christchurch landowner, whose property sits at the foot of unstable clifftop land purchased by the Crown following the Canterbury earthquakes, has failed in the Supreme Court to obtain damages in “private nuisance” for the risk of further...

BuildLaw Issue 52

December 2023Download PDF   CONTENTS From the Editor BuildLaw in Brief How do you solve a problem like retentions? The “measured duty” to love thy neighbour: Private nuisance and naturally occurring hazards. Disruption claims: Are your project records up to date?...

New regulations for building products

Written by Richard Pidgeon The Building (Building Product Information Requirements) Regulations 2022 set out how information about building products contributes to building code compliance. The regulations stipulate that information on how products are to be installed...

Mainzeal saga ends in the Supreme Court

By Richard Pidgeon In Yan v Mainzeal Property and Construction Limited [2023] NZSC 113 the Supreme Court upheld damages against Mr Yan in the sum of $39.8 million and the remaining three directors (including Dame Jenny Shipley) jointly with Mr Yan in the sum of $6.6...

Obstructed view review

Written by Maria Cole Introduction In Wynyard Quarter Residents Association Incorporated v Auckland Council and Orams Group Limited,[1] a group of apartment owners filed judicial review proceedings seeking to overturn an Auckland Council decision to grant resource...

The losing streak is over: English rugby wins… right to bring claim against contractor

Written by Alexander Lyall Nearly 10 years on, English rugby finally has a victory related to the 2015 Rugby World Cup. In FM Conway Ltd v Rugby Football Union,[1] a company contracted by the English Rugby Football Union (the RFU) for maintenance works at Twickenham...

Moving home

Written by Richard Pidgeon A family became dissatisfied with a house removal firm who had shifted their home from Remuera to Katikati. In Stott v Uplifting Homes Ltd [2023] NZHC 1514, the High Court determined the level of compensation after the contract was...

Big loss for insurer in legal battle with Napier Council over leaky building clause

Written by Sam Dorne In a recent case, the Supreme Court of New Zealand ruled in favour of the Napier City Council in an insurance claim involving building defects including weathertightness or “leaky building” issues, in what is seen as a return to the status quo...

BuildLaw Issue 51

September 2023Download PDF   CONTENTS BuildLaw in Brief Keep calm and carry on Mainzeal saga ends in the Supreme Court New Zealand: Insurance under Scrutiny Obstructed view review Case in Brief: Esk Valley marae injunction Res judicata and declarations relating...

Take a rain cheque – Full Federal Court of Australia reads common sense into insurance policy

By Alexander Lyall A decision by the Full Federal Court of Australia has provided clarification about the wording of an insurance policy for a construction project. In Acciona Infrastructure Australia Pty Ltd v Zurich Australian Insurance Limited [2023] FCAFC 47,[1] ...

Case update: English Court of Appeal confirms ‘useless’ ADR procedure too uncertain to enforce

By Kate Holland In our December 2022 issue of BuildLaw, we reported on a case in the English High Court[1] about an unusual alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedure in a construction contract that was held to be too uncertain to be an enforceable condition...

English Court of Appeal confirms ‘useless’ ADR procedure too uncertain to enforce

By Kate Holland In our December 2022 issue of BuildLaw, we reported on a case in the English High Court[1] about an unusual alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedure in a construction contract that was held to be too uncertain to be an enforceable condition...

Disgruntled builders lose defective cladding dispute

By Sam Dorne In Goodman-Jones v Hughey & ors [2023] NZHC 604, two experienced builders brought a claim for damages for a perceived defective installation of cladding for a new build. Despite the action being brought against multiple defendants the Court found that...

BuildLaw Issue 50

June 2023Download PDF   CONTENTS BuildLaw in Brief: Recent key developments in the construction industry Bad faith and without substantial merit – What it means and what it takes Disgruntled builders lose defective cladding dispute High-rise blues Build-to-Rent:...

Craftiness is not an abuse of process

With cashflow a persistent concern for companies in the construction industry, a recent decision in the New South Wales Supreme Court may alleviate some of the stress. The decision should affirm to struggling parties that there is no problem with taking strategic...

Privileged glimpses: Curtain falls on art gallery’s nuisance ‘human zoo’ exhibit

By Kate Holland The UK Supreme Court has ruled that the London Tate Modern’s public viewing gallery overlooking the luxury glass-walled apartments nearby, is a visual intrusion amounting to the tort of nuisance. The decision in has attracted criticism for prioritising...

Waiver and estoppel arguments raised in interim payment dispute

By Sam Dorne The English Court of Appeal case of A & V Building Solutions Limited v J & B Hopkins Limited has highlighted issues parties face when there is ambiguity in relation to dates for requesting interim payment in construction contracts.[1] The case...

Doing business in Australia? Then you need to know when you still might have to pick up the whole tab

By Maria Cole If you have a commercial contract in Australia, it’s probably governed by Australian law, which includes the proportionate liability regime.[1] Broadly, proportionate liability means if there are multiple parties to a contract and things go wrong, a...

Parliament passes sweeping amendments to construction payment regime

By Alexander Lyall Parliament has recently enacted legislation allowing for comprehensive changes to the Construction Contracts Act 2002. The Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Act 2023 passed its third reading on Wednesday 29 March and received Royal...

BuildLaw Issue 49

March 2023Download pdf   CONTENTS Diamond Glass slices damages in airport contract Case in Brief: Craftiness is not an abuse of process (Kennedy Civil Contracting Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) v Richard Crookes Construction Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 99) That...

Builder terminates contract with a “sorry mate…costs are going through the roof”

By Kate Holland With the construction industry in the grip of labour and supply shortages and spiralling costs, a recent decision of the Queensland court is a timely reminder of the established principles of contractual repudiation. The decision is a warning to...

Ripping up the Resource Management Act

By Adrian Sharma The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) is one of New Zealand’s most important pieces of legislation. It governs what can be built where, when, and how. But more than 30 years on from its introduction, and after numerous amendments, the controversial...

To bespoke or too bespoke – the case of an ADR clause that couldn’t be enforced

By Kate Holland In a recent English decision, the Technology and Construction Court held that a clause in a construction contract requiring the parties to refer a dispute to ADR was a condition precedent to commencing litigation in the courts. However, the Court also...

The Court of Appeal sounds the all clear and it’s business as usual under the CCA: so file a payment schedule or pay up!

By Maria Cole A decision issued by the High Court last year caused a “head in hands” moment in the construction industry in relation to the payment claim regime. The High Court set aside a statutory demand which had been filed to enforce a payment claim as a debt due...

BuildLaw Issue 48

December 2022Download pdf   CONTENTS The Court of Appeal sounds the all clear and it’s business as usual under the CCA: so issue a payment schedule or pay up! Case in Brief: Builder terminates contract with a “sorry mate… costs are going through the roof” but...

Labelling an image as an ‘artist impression’ was found not to give a developer artistic licence in a claim of misleading and deceptive conduct over an ‘off-the-plan’ premium apartment

By Maria Cole Australian consumer protection law was given an outing in the Federal Court of Australia when a developer merely added the words ‘artist impression’ to a computer generated image it intended to use in its marketing materials for an ‘off-the-plan’...

Fire risk – defective cladding litigation heats up

By Sam Dorne In England and Wales, the Technology and Construction Court in Martlet Homes Ltd v Mulalley & Co Ltd [2022] EWHC 1813 (TCC) (14 July 2022) has released the first decision arising out of a defective cladding dispute following the Grenfell Tower...

BuildLaw Issue 47

September 2022CONTENTS Competition not working well in residential building suppliesmarket Fire risk – defective cladding litigation heats up Case in Brief: Supreme Court of New South Wales finds forcemajeure clause offered no protection for loss and damage togoods in...

WA Supreme Court finds no implied licence to use home design plan

By Kate Holland In a recent Australian case, the WA Supreme Court was unwilling to interpret a contract between a home builder and their client to imply a licence allowing the client to use the builder’s design in whatever way they pleased. Although the case was...

Overhaul coming to the regulation of engineers

By Sam Dorne The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) undertook a consultation in 2021 to reform the regulatory regime for engineers. The reforms will move away from a voluntary accreditation scheme into a formal regulated regime.   Current...

Expert “evidence” needs to be more than just bald assertions to win the day

By Adrian Sharma Leakage issues in a building can be a real dampener. A recent decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) which considered conflicting expert evidence on water ingress issues in a newly built property highlighted the...

An adjudicator’s decision on a construction contract is definitely worth the paper it’s written on!

By Maria Cole It’s only in rare circumstances that the courts will interfere with the decision of an adjudicator on a construction contract. A recent decision out of the English Technology and Construction Court (TCC) considered arguments that an adjudicator acted in...

You break it you bought it: Supreme Court confirms you can’t cancel a contract for failure to satisfy a condition if your own behaviour had a material effect on the failure

By Belinda Green.   We’ve known for a long time that a party can’t rely on a failure to satisfy a condition if the condition failed to satisfy because of their action. But we never really had an explanation of how bad that “failure” had to be until now. In its...

BuildLaw Issue 46

March 2022CONTENTS You break it you bought it: Supreme Court confirms you can’t cancel a contract for failure to satisfy a condition if your own behaviour had a material effect on the failure Case in Brief: Unhelpful expert witness sees homeowners succeed in defective...

Vicarious liability and subcontractors

By Sam Dorne Liability in tort depends upon proof of a personal breach of duty, with one true exception, vicarious liability. The law of negligence is generally fault based; a defendant is personally liable only for the defendant’s own negligent acts and omissions....

Limitation for payment claims under construction contracts

By Sam Dorne The decision in Hirst v Dunbar [2022] EWHC 41 (TCC) considers the impact of payment provisions in a construction contract, whether through contract or implied terms, and the commencement of the limitation period for payment claims under the contract. It...

Extensions of time in construction contracts

By Jo O’Dea   In an extension of time claim, blame for the delay was a relevant consideration when assessing what was “fair and reasonable”.   In CAJ v CAI [2021] 5 GCA 102, the Singapore Court of Appeal considered the issue of extensions of time in...

BuildLaw Issue 45

March 2022CONTENTS Extensions of time in construction contracts Construction contract procedure and dispute resolution: There really is a reason to pay attention to the boring stuff Principals beware, constructive acceleration is here UK: Important announcement on the...

Testing the waters: New South Wales Supreme Court considers the prevention principle

By Hannah Aziz  Court provides further confirmation that the prevention principle can be excluded by the terms of a contract.   Introduction Following our recent commentary comparing the operation of the prevention principle in New South Wales and Victoria, the...

Construction contract or product warranty? Not all collateral warranty disputes can be adjudicated

By Belinda Green Collateral warranties might be parasitic on a construction contract, but that doesn’t automatically mean they are one. The individual wording and circumstances need to be considered. In some cases, like in Toppan Holdings Limited v Simply Construction...
Skip to content