Legal views 鈥� Page 51
-
CommentPlanning performance targets: Not hitting the bullseye
Fast tracking the planning process is one way to tackle the housing shortage - but are planning performance targets having the opposite effect?
-
CommentEU procurement directive: Size matters
A new EU procurement directive will soon demand new contracts for sizeable variations to public projects, but tread carefully: substantial is a subjective word
-
CommentWho says it鈥檚 not fair?
The supply chain payment charter promises to end retention and lengthy payment schedules. But despite its subjective language it has a sting - you鈥檙e signing up to legal obligations
-
CommentPutting our 鈥╢aith in BIM
The collaborative sharing of information across projects through Level 2 BIM certainly sounds good on paper. In reality, it relies on a level of trust that the industry has never been comfortable with
-
CommentCIOB Consultancy Appointment: Appoint in Time
Last year the CIOB 鈥榮 Complex Projects Contract stressed the importance of time and cost management. Now it is to be joined by a consultancy agreement as it transitions to a suite of contracts
-
CommentHave your say on CDM changes
The HSE is asking for feedback on its draft CDM regulations so this is a chance for the industry to consider how the proposals will affect businesses and whether standards will be raised
-
CommentNet contribution clauses: Make sure it's 'crystal clear'
Net contribution clauses have become common place in certain construction agreements such as consultant appointments, warranties and third party rights schedules in favour of purchaser and tenants
-
CommentConditions precedent: Toe the line or else
The presence of condition precedent type clauses in contracts can turn a claim situation on its head
-
CommentPutting paid to late payment
Whether further legislation can improve construction鈥檚 payment culture is debatable. It鈥檚 more about knowing your responsibilities and properly understanding the risks
-
CommentAdverse possession: A possession of strength
Trespassers can acquire rights to vacant sites so developers need to be vigilant if they own land awaiting development, or are considering buying empty plots
-
CommentFIDIC standard form: Rock steady ruling
A dispute originating in Gibraltar demonstrates how international cases can be brought to London鈥檚 TCC to take advantage of its specialist knowledge
-
CommentBasements: Going underground
Basements may be an attractive proposition for homeowners and developers, but contractors need to take note of the legal considerations to avoid digging themselves into a big hole
-
CommentLaker vs Jacobs: A complex case
This case is a good reminder of the court鈥檚 unwillingness to set aside adjudicator鈥檚 decisions where mistakes within the decision may be found to exist
-
CommentWitnesses: Remember it like it was yesterday?
Judges and dispute deciders should place little reliance on what witnesses 鈥榬ecall鈥� happened, as our minds forget and distort events over time - however vividly we think we remember
-
CommentFundamental breach: Calling time
If you think the other party to your contract has committed a fundamental breach, you better be sure before you lock the site gates behind them - as you could be committing one yourself
-
CommentPanama Canal project: Troubled waters
With an estimated $1.6bn shortfall and no adequate remedy in the contract, the Panama Canal project shows that a low tender price and transferred risk don鈥檛 make for plain sailing
-
CommentCIL: A complex regime
According to the government CIL is a 鈥渇airer, faster and more transparent鈥� system than Section 106 agreements. In reality it鈥檚 a bit more complicated than that
-
CommentInsurance: Hand arm vibration
Around five million workers are exposed to hand arm vibration. So what can employers do to minimise the risk of this problem and guard against costly insurance claims?
-
CommentOverseas investors: Biting the hands that feed us
Don鈥檛 blame developers and foreign investment for housing shortage
-
CommentAdjudicator jurisdiction: Between a rock and a hard place
A case from January illustrates the potential difficulties of seeking to limit the jurisdiction of an adjudicator and how, consequently, their decision may be wider than expected