Get on with it! Does a sub-contractor need to proceed regularly and diligently with its works?

In Leander Construction Limited v Mulalley and Company Limited (2011), the Technology and Construction Court declined to imply a term into a sub-contract obliging the sub-contractor to proceed with its works regularly and diligently.

Adjudication enforcement: what happened to 'pay now and argue later'?

The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) has consistently demonstrated in a string of cases its unwillingness to overturn adjudicators' decisions.

Fitness for purpose - when the kit doesn't fit

'Fitness for purpose' and 'satisfactory quality': deceptively problematic concepts which are frequently encountered in the construction industry. How do implied terms under the Sale of Goods Act impact on construction contracts? What are the consequences of not having a written contract?

The nuts and bolts - part 12. Practical completion - What does it mean?

In this, the 12th and final part of our series, we examine the basics and key issues surrounding Practical Completion.

Adjudication and conclusivity: enough is enough

The Technology & Construction Court has made its decision in Jerram Falkus Construction Ltd v Fenice Investments Inc [No 4]. The judgment provides useful guidance on conclusivity provisions in construction contracts relating to final accounts, final statements and adjudicators' decisions.

The nuts and bolts - part 7. No time for delay: getting to grips with extensions of time

There are very few construction disputes where delay is not an issue. The process of establishing entitlement to an extension of time can be both time-consuming and costly.

The nuts and bolts - part 1. The challenges ahead in public procurement

In today's competitive construction industry, forewarned is forearmed. By considering and preparing for the legal issues which can arise during a typical construction project, your business will be better equipped to save time and money.

Court of Appeal decision: builder not liable for costs of remedial work

The Court of Appeal has confirmed that a builder or seller of a building does not, because of the existence a contract, assume any liability in tort for defects in the building which result in pure economic loss.

Linklaters decision: when pipes and insulation became an installation

The Linklaters Business Services v Sir Robert McAlpine trial has now taken place. Wragge & Co's experts examine the decision.

How effective is your retention of title clause?

Suppliers of goods often get a rough deal when their customers become insolvent because they are unsecured creditors. Retention of Title (RoT) clauses can provide some protection to suppliers.

Tort strikes back: subcontractors' liability for pure economic loss

Can a subcontractor or supplier employed to carry out works or supply goods to a contractor in relation to a construction project, owe a duty of care and be liable for the damage caused to the building by its defective works to anyone other than its employer?

Goodbye Tolent clause, hello Scheme

Since 2000, clauses requiring the referring party in an adjudication to pay all the legal and expert costs of both parties, plus the costs of the adjudicator, have been held not to offend the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA).

'Fit for habitation' under The Defective Premises Act 1972

Costs penalty follows withdrawal from mediation

Mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution are now part and parcel of the dispute resolution landscape with the courts keen to ensure that litigation is very much seen as a last resort.

Construction update - January 2007

Do I not like that

Negative declarations are becoming more and more popular it seems in construction particularly in adjudications.

Complex structure theory unresolved

In Construction Law we examined the scope of a builder's duty in tort not to cause 'pure economic loss' (or financial loss) in anticipation of the eagerly awaited decision in Linklaters Business Services v Sir Robert McAlpine.

Economic loss and complex structures

The scope of a builder's duty in tort not to cause 'pure economic loss' has fast become one of the most talked about legal issues in the construction industry.

Do I not like that

Negative declarations are becoming more and more popular it seems in construction particularly in adjudications. 

Goodbye Tolent clause, hello Scheme

For the past ten years contracts providing for one party to pay not only its own costs but also the other side's costs in an adjudication (whatever the outcome) have been accepted in the construction industry. Why shouldn't this be the case?