Condition precedents are common in various commercial agreements. In this article, we discuss the court’s general approach to considering contractual condition precedents, and whether, particularly after the recent case of Lancashire Schools SPC Phase 2 Limited v Lendlease Construction (Europe) Limited and Others [2024] EWHC 37 (TCC), the court may be prepared to disregard them.
It has been a busy year in the construction industry and within our team. There have been some standout legislative changes, including in relation to the Building Safety Act 2022, and the Government has issued a significant paper in respect of behaviours relating to PFI contracts.
All the while the impact of inflation and interest rates has meant
Smash and grab adjudications are a perpetual thorn in employers’ sides. A claim will pop up that a pay less notice has been missed and significant sums are now owed. Employers then need to cobble together procedural arguments to resist the claim.
That’s hard enough as it is. But what if the contractor could also simultaneously adjudicate on an alternative
Last month, Kort Egan presented a paper to the Society of Construction Law on “Smash and Grab” adjudications.
These adjudications are common, and so we thought it would be useful to provide a summary of the paper.
A “smash and grab” adjudication is one where payment is sought either under the payment provisions
Employers still trip up when it comes to issuing pay less notices. As a result they can find themselves on the sharp end of ‘smash and grab’ adjudications and paying substantial sums even where there is no merit behind them.
True value adjudications can come to the rescue. They are an opportunity for employers to dispute the valuation of applications
Last autumn, the Centre for Construction Law & Dispute Resolution at King’s College London, in collaboration with The Adjudication Society, released the report ‘2022 Construction Adjudication in the United Kingdom: Tracing Trends and Guiding Reform.’ The study revealed that
