Authors: Justin Mendelle and Tola Odedoyin
Update
After the 2016 judgment in Lulu Construction Ltd (“Lulu”) v Mulalley & Co Ltd, the door on recovering costs in adjudication was ajar. The recent unreported case of Enviroflow Management Limited v Redhill Works (Nottingham) Limited may have closed it.
The issue is how the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996
A recent case has seen the Supreme Court Justices overturn more than 30 years of settled law on the legal test for dishonesty. The case of Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd [2017] UKSC 67 has redefined the dishonesty test, as had been set out in the case of R v Ghosh [1982] EWCA Crim 2.
Background
When Mr.
The Legal 500 – widely regarded as one of the most authoritative guides to the legal sector – has recommended London-based Solicitors and Parliamentary Agents, Sharpe Pritchard, across ten categories in its 2017 edition.
Sharpe Pritchard acts for local authorities, central government bodies, contracting authorities, other public sector organisations and registered social landlords, as well as advising commercial clients and
Background
Cyden Homes Limited (the “Defendant”) engaged North Midland Building Limited (the “Claimant”) to design and construct a large house (known as ‘South Farm’) plus outbuildings. The contract used was the JCT Design & Build Contract 2005 with bespoke amendments.
The amendment at issue in this case concerned the extension of time provision where the employer has received notification of
Background
When panes of glass started to fall from 125 Old Broad Street onto the pavement in the heart of the City of London, it was clear that something had gone wrong with the recent refurbishment of that building. The refurbishment works took place between 2006 and 2008 under a design and build contract. Lend Lease Construction (Europe) Limited was
“This is an application by the defendant to stay these proceedings pursuant to section 9(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (“the 1996 Act”). However, that bland description does not accurately convey the plethora of issues and sub-issues which have arisen between the parties arising out of and connected with the stay application” (paragraph 1).
The court’s opening words in the
