Search results

This paper aims to discuss forthcoming changes to the Housing Grants Regeneration and Construction Act 1996 following UK government consultation exercises. The paper seeks to examine five key areas of construction contract administration which will be affected should the proposed changes be included in new legislation.

The approach of the paper is to conduct a literature review of the proposed changes.

The five key areas are: changes in requirement for contracts to be in writing; changes to interim payment decisions by third parties; so‐called “Tolent” clauses and matters concerning adjudication costs, cross contracts; and payment notices. The implications of how these changes might affect building surveyors are explored. The paper concludes that while some of the proposed changes are likely to be welcomed, other proposed changes throw up potential complex and difficult legal issues.

It is hoped that this paper will stimulate discussion between practitioners and academics about suitable reforms to adjudication and construction law issues in the UK.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the development of English Law and the Law in New South Wales, Australia in statutory adjudication concerning judicial review of adjudicators' errors in law.

This paper adopts a black‐letter law approach focussing on recent decisions and their effect on statutory adjudication.

Following the commencement of statutory adjudication in the UK, the English courts swiftly supported the new “pay now, argue later”, rapid form of dispute resolution by holding adjudication to be a private dispute resolution process akin to expert valuation. As such, the English courts have consistently held that adjudicators operate within their jurisdiction even though they may err on points of law, as long as such errors were committed in the course of attempting to answer a question they were contractually authorised to consider. The courts' position in New South Wales (NSW), however, has differed considerably. In NSW, the first Australian State to introduce statutory adjudication, the courts' position with respect to errors of law on the face of the record made by an adjudicator, who had jurisdiction to enter on the inquiry, in the course of making their determination has been somewhat tortuous. Contrary to the initial position following commencement of statutory adjudication, the paper concludes that it may now be more difficult to enforce an adjudicator's determination which contains an error of law in England than in NSW.

This paper compares the development of adjudication law in England with that of one state in Australia. The different directions that the law has taken in these jurisdictions will be of interest to academic and practitioners not only in England and Australia but to other jurisdictions where statutory adjudication has been introduced or where legislation is being considered. To the authors knowledge no previous study of this kind has been carried out previously.

This paper aims to look at the recent UK Court of Appeal decision in Jones v Ruth and explores whether building works are capable of being construed as harassment by the Courts.

The paper looks at the concept of harassment as used in the Prevention of Harassment Act 1997 and how this applies in the context of building operations. It adopts a black letter or doctrinal approach to the study.

Whilst it is confirmed that a certain amount of inconvenience due to building operations is not actionable in English law, the Court of Appeal in this case has confirmed that in cases where harassment is proven, then substantial damages may be imposed on the offending party. This has implications not only for building contractors but for construction professionals such as architects or building surveyors who are involved in supervising contractors.

This research takes the subject of construction law into uncharted territory. Previously it was thought by many observers that the Prevention of Harassment Act was confined to cases involving employment law and/or sexual or racial discrimination. Jones v Ruth shatters this previous thinking in this area and confirms that “harassment” cases can be applied in building projects. It is arguable that were Jones v Ruth merely a High Court decision, then only a limited weight might be given to the verdict. However, Jones v Ruth now is a Court of Appeal decision which gives an authoritative voice to the verdict by some of the most powerful judges in the land.

The practical implication is that building surveyors supervising building works need to be aware of the law to avoid being sued for harassment.

It might have been taken for granted that all building works involve noise, dust, vibration, etc. Jones v Ruth confirms that in extreme circumstances it is possible to recover large damages for harassment and that all persons involved in the construction process ought to take note.

There is an expanding body of law dealing with compensation for inconvenience and disturbance, however there is a paucity of literature dealing with the implications of this for building surveyors and construction professionals. This paper explores claims for harassment through the lens of a major Court of Appeal decision in a succinct and practical way to allow academics and practitioners an insight into this expanding area of construction law.

This paper aims to explore the Bribery Act 2010 and its likely implications for building surveyors. The paper also aims to report a small‐scale research project exploring whether building surveyors are prepared for the Act.

The method used was a survey questionnaire completed by 53 building surveyors.

The findings revealed that many building surveyors, while having heard of the Act, had no idea when it would come into force nor were they aware of what steps to take to comply with the provisions of the Act. The survey revealed that very few building‐surveying firms had existing policies to cover anti‐competitive behaviour or corrupt practices. The conclusion of this paper is that building surveyors need to review their procedures urgently if they are to comply with the provisions of the Bribery Act 2010.

The small sample size of the study suggests that some caution should be exercised in believing that such ignorance is typical of the entire industry.

The Bribery Act comes into force in April 2011 and the level of knowledge of this new legislation revealed by this study is a cause for concern.

This paper aims to look at the recent case of WW Gear Construction Ltd v. McGee Group Ltd (henceforth “WW Gear”) and the complex legal concept of a condition precedent in construction contracts.

The paper looks at the origin of a condition precedent and explores recent cases in which a condition precedent was involved as an issue. The wording of the relevant contract documents used in WW Gear is examined and the attitude adopted by the judiciary when dealing with an alleged condition precedent is explored in depth.

From the judgment handed down by the court it is clear that provided such a clause in a contract is correctly framed and the words used indicate a clear intention of the parties which is reasonable, then the English Courts will find that a condition precedent is enforceable.

When dealing with a condition precedent, the judges will interpret any condition precedent strictly but not so strictly that a minor drafting error makes the condition precedent unenforceable. The exact boundaries of strictness cannot be settled by WW Gear but will have to await further development of case law through future litigation. The implications of WW Gear for building surveyors and the wider construction industry are that considerable care must be taken in the administration of construction contracts where conditions precedent are present. The adjudicator was clearly incorrect in his finding that the relevant sub‐clauses were meaningless and could be safely ignored by the parties.

Whilst the legal concept of a condition precedent has featured in several modern construction law cases there is a paucity of literature dealing with the implications for building surveyors and construction professionals. This paper explores the importance of this often ignored legal concept not as abstract jurisprudence but in a succinct and practical way allowing practitioners to understand more fully the implications of a condition precedent on projects in which they are involved.