UK: Keating Chambers Case Law Review June 2005

Last Updated: 11 July 2005

By Keating Chambers Professional Support Director
Professor Anthony Lavers LL.B, M.Phil, Ph.D, MCI.Arb, MRICS, Barrister

SECTION 1 – ADJUDICATION

Construction Act Reform

Improving payment practices by Catriona Dodsworth, Pinsent Masons and The sub-contractors’ perspective by Suzanne Reeves, Wedlake Bell Construction Law June 2005 Vol. 16 Issue 5 pp 14-19

Catriona Dodsworth summarises the most significant proposals of the DTI, highlighting those areas where the Latham recommendations have not been adopted and the few where they have been exceeded, such as the suggestion that adjudicators might be given the power to open up and review interim certificates which the parties have agreed to be final and binding.

Suzanne Reeves criticises the consultation from the sub-contractors’ viewpoint as ‘tinkering at the edges’ since an adequate payment mechanism needs sanctions or incentives to achieve anything significant. She would like to see cross-contract set-off outlawed as Sir Michael had originally suggested ten years ago.

Expiry of adjudicator’s jurisdiction

Ritchie Brothers (PWC) Ltd v David Philp (Commercials) [2005] CILL 2244 Court of Session Inner House

By a 2-1 majority, the Second Division of the Inner House allowed defenders David Philp’s appeal against the enforcement order made against them. The majority held that the adjudicator’s jurisdiction expired after 28 days, unless extended in accordance with paragraph 19(1) of the Scheme (the Scottish Scheme is the same as that of England and Wales on this point). The CILL Editors express serious doubts about the approach taken by the majority.

This case is the subject of the article ’28 days means 28 days’ by Fraser McMillan of Pinsent Masons, Construction Law June 2005 Vol. 16 Issue 5 p.32.

Construction Act Review

Improving payment practices in the construction industry: the DTI’s consultation on proposals to amend the Construction Act and the Scheme for Construction Contracts by Peter Sheridan and Dominic Helps, Shadbolts, Construction Law Journal 2005 Vol. 21 No. 4 p. 306

Following their review of the Latham Group’s report, the authors use their regular column to consider the March 2005 DTI consultation document. They conclude that the Government has identified those issues which command general consensus, for reform of the primary and secondary legislation. They regret that the DTI seems to be rejecting clear Latham recommendations on extending the Act to PFI concession agreements, residential owners and process plants and on a less strict approach to agreements in writing.

SECTION 2 – ARBITRATION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION

International Dispute Management

Legal issues of dispute management in international construction projects contracting by Edwin Chan and Henry Suen, Hong Kong Polytechnic University Construction Law Journal 2005 Vol. 21 No. 4 p. 291

The article is based on the first author’s Ph.D thesis on moves towards harmonisation of construction law and their impact upon dispute management in international contracts. There is an interesting section on Sino-foreign joint venture international projects and consideration of ‘soft’ concepts such as ‘good faith’ and ‘amiable composition’.

Lords rule on legal challenges

Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v Impregilo SpA [2005] UKHL 43 House of Lords

The House of Lords delivered a major statement on challenges to arbitration awards in reversing the decision of the Court of Appeal. Lord Steyn, giving the principal speech, referred to the far-reaching changes made by the Arbitration Act 1996 to the prospects of challenge. In this case, being an ICC arbitration, challenge on point of law was excluded. The majority (Lord Phillips dissenting) held that there was no excess of jurisdiction by the arbitrators:

"the erroneous exercise of an available power cannot by itself amount to an excess of power. A mere error of law will not amount to an excess of power under Section 68(2)(b)".

Construction Law June 2005 Vol. 16 Issue 5

Contains the following articles:

Inference is not good enough
by Anthony Edwards, Park Lane Chambers , On incorporation of arbitration clauses.

Working with a mediator
by Paul Newman, Hugh James

The Journal of International Arbitration June 2005 Vol. 22 No. 3

Contains the following articles:

Security for costs in international commercial arbitration
by Weixia Gu, University of Hong Kong

Private arbitration and regulatory adjudication in the telecommunications industry
by Alexis Mourre, Castaldi Mourre Sprague, Paris

Recognition and enforcement of interim measures of protection ordered by arbitral tribunals
by Jean-Paul Beraudo, Paris University

CEPANI reviews its rules
by Guy Keutgen, Universite Catholique de Louvain, on the Belgian Centre for Arbitration and Mediation

International Arbitration Law Review April 2005 Vol. 8 Issue 2

Contains the following articles:

The ICC Dispute Board Rules
by David Cairns and Ignacio Madelena, B Cremades y Asociados, Madrid

Selection of arbitrators in international commercial arbitrators
by Emilia Onyema, Queen Mary College, London

The Paris Court of Appeal looks at a request for the annulment of an award for breach of EC Competition Law
by Thierry Tomasi, Denton Wilde Sapte, Paris

Procedural irregularity: setting aside or remitting awards under English and Irish law – a comparative assessment
by Laurence Shore, Herbert Smith, London and Gearoid Carey, Matheson Ormsby Prentice, Dublin

SECTION 3 – CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING CONTRACT LAW

FIDIC Claims

Contractor’s claims under the FIDIC Contracts for Major Works by Christopher Seppala, White & Case, Paris Construction Law Journal 2005 Vol. 21 No. 4 p.278

Noting that the 1999 FIDIC Red and Yellow Books contain some 30 sub-clauses specifying events which may give rise to a claim by a contractor, the author produces a useful list setting out the clause number, its subject and an outline of the contractor’s potential entitlement. The other principal benefit of the article is its consideration of the mandatory claims procedure to be followed by the contractor, in which the position under the Silver Book is also mentioned. The author is Legal Adviser to the FIDIC Contracts Committee.

JCT 2005 launched

JCT has completely revised and updated its suite of contracts – all the JCT 98 documents have been significantly amended. The contracts no longer have separate supplements, for example for sectional completion or contractors’ design portions. JCT Forms on Disk has been replaced by the JCT Contracts Digital Service. Amendments will not be published any more, but will be incorporated into a revised edition immediately.

See www.jctcontracts.com for further details and on-line ordering.

Construction Law June 2005 Vol. 16 Issue 5

Contains the following articles:

The perils of selective reading
by Michael Phipps, Thurston Associates (on the JCT Major Project Form Sub-Contract.)

Corporate manslaughter – a new regime?
by Jane Hughes, Kendall Freeman, (on the new draft Bill.)

Planning for business continuity
by John D Wright, JD Risk Associates, (on risk management.)

Estoppel appeal fails

Actionstrength Ltd v International Glass Engineering [2005] Butterworths Company Law Cases p. 606 House of Lords

Sub-contractors Actionstrength failed in their appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision that their claim for direct payment against the employer must fail. The employer’s promise to pay direct in the event of main contractor default was a guarantee caught by the Statute of Frauds s.4. The sub-contractors’ argument that the employer was estopped from pleading the statute was described by Simon Brown LJ in the Court of Appeal as "hopeless" and the House of Lords agreed.

SECTION 4 – GENERAL AND PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE

National Vulcan Engineering Insurance Group Ltd v Pentax Pty Ltd [2005] BLR 287 New South Wales CA

Following injury to a workman employed by sub-contractor Pentax in leaving the site, the workman obtained verdicts against Pentax and main contractor Multiplex. Multiplex were entitled to an indemnity from Pentax. Pentax claimed the same sum from its insurer, National Vulcan. The insurer appealed against the verdict, arguing that Pentax’s liability to Multiplex was not in respect of personal injury but was in respect of a contractual indemnity. The NSW CA, dismissing the appeal, held that the wording of the policy was sufficiently wide to include the sums which Pentax had to pay Multiplex under the contractual indemnity: it was a sum "for or in respect of personal injury".

OBG Ltd v Allen [2005] BLR 245 CA

Contractors OBG had successfully sued receivers wrongly appointed by creditors for the tort of wrongful interference with contractual relations, in connection with their contract with client North West Water. However, the CA, allowing the receivers’ appeal, held that, although the receivers had interfered with OBG’s business, there had been no intention to interfere with a contractual relationship in any relevant sense. The receivers had thus not committed the tort of wrongful interference.

Surveyors negligence and loss of a chance

Francis v Barclays Bank Plc [2005] PNLR 18 Ch. Div.

Chartered surveyors were held liable in respect of failure to make inquiries regarding probable designation for residential development under local plan.

Reliance and causation were to be determined on the basis of "loss of a chance", applying Allied Maples Group v Simmons & Simmons.

No duty of valuer to borrower

Wilson v Hall & Sons [2005] PNLR 22 Court of Session (Outer House)

A chartered surveyor instructed by a bank reported on the value of the property on which a loan was secured, stating that the report was solely for the bank’s use. The bank showed the report to the borrower who based his asking price on it in marketing the property. The borrower alleged negligent over valuation leading to failure to sell, but the court held the surveyor to owe no duty of care to the borrower.

SECTION 5 - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Winding-up petition

Penwith DC v VP Developments Ltd [ 2005] TCLR 4 Companies Court

The court struck out a winding-up petition sought by the local authority client against a contractor with whom it was engaged in several arbitrations. The contractor would be able to plead set-off between its own cross-claim and the alleged petition debt since they were closely related. Special circumstances would have been necessary to allow the petition to proceed.

Costs after partial success

Cambridge Antibody Technology Ltd v Abbott Biotechnology Ltd [2005] CILL 2234 Ch. Div.

Under Part 44 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the Court has discretion to allow full recovery of costs even where a party did not succeed on all the issues pleaded. In this (non-construction) case, the judge held that the trial would have run for just as long and covered similar ground even if one area of argument had not been pleaded.

Good Faith

Post-contractual good faith – a further change in judicial attitude
by André Naidoo, De Montfort University Modern Law Review 2005 Vol. 68 No. 3 p. 464

The article considers developments of the duty of insurers towards insureds, redressing the perceived imbalance in the post-contractual rights and duties of the parties. The Court of Appeal reviewed the position in the motor case of Drake Insurance v Provident Insurance and the author examines whether it means that assured and insurer have mutual duties of good faith or different ones. He concludes that the Drake case is part of a wider trend whereby insurers are coming to be regarded as obliged to deal with claims made under a duty of good faith.

Costs order against shareholder

CIBC Mellon Trust Co v Stolzenberg [2005] CILL 2237

Where a shareholder, even though not a director, funds, controls and directs litigation by the defendant company in order to promote or protect his own interests, there is no reason why a costs order should not be made against him. The CILL Editors note this as a further extension of the decision in Gemma v Gimson where a costs order was made against directors.

Pirelli lives on

Abbott v Will Gannon & Smith Ltd [2005] CILL 2225 CA

This is a limitation case upholding Pirelli v Oscan Faber and Ketteman v Hansel. The first instance decision was that "if cracks first appeared within six years of the issue of proceedings, [the claim] is not statute-barred". The CA rejected the appeal of the defendant engineers; Murphy v Brentwood has not overruled either of these authorities, which continue to govern cases on the accrual of the cause of action in tort in latent damage cases.

SECTION 6 – KEATING CHAMBERS REPORTED CASES

Wimbledon Construction Co 2000 Ltd v Vago [2005] All ER (D) 277 TCC

Even if evidence of a successful party’s financial position indicated that it was probable that it would be unable to pay sums awarded at a substantive trial, hat would not normally be sufficient to stay the execution of a summary judgment enforcing an adjudicator’s decision. Such evidence might in principle constitute special circumstances justifying a stay but the purpose of adjudication, namely summary enforcement of an interim result, would normally prevail.

Simon Hughes

Costain Ltd v Bechtel Ltd [2005] CILL p.2239 TCC

Following a meeting with the project managers on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link project, contract administrators increased disallowance of items in contractors’ claims. The contractors alleged improper interference, causing the client to breach the contract and sought interim injunctions. The project managers argued that under the (amended) NEC contract there was no duty of impartiality on the project managers. The court entertained doubts about this and held that there was a serious issue to be tried, but refused the injunctions, since on the balance of convenience, damages would be an adequate remedy.

David Thomas QC

Hong Kong Arbitration Award [2005] Con LJ Vol. 21 No. 4 321

In an arbitration award from Hong Kong published with the consent of arbitrator and parties, it was held that under clause 23 of the Hong Kong RICS Contract an architect could grant an extension of time for instructions or variations only causing delay when the date for completion was past.

Philip Boulding QC

Alfred McAlpine Capital Projects Ltd v Tilebox Ltd [2005] BLR 271 TCC

This case contains a useful review of the modern law on the distinction between liquidated damages and penalties. On the facts, the liquidated damages provision in the JCT WCD 1998 for £45,000 per week was a genuine pre-estimate of loss and the actual loss suffered by the developer, Tilebox, was higher. The contractor therefore failed to obtain a declaration that the provision was a penalty.

Paul Darling QC

AMEC Civil Engineering Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport [2005] CILL 2228 and [2005] BLR 227 CA

This is the report of the CA’s dismissal of the contractor’s appeal in the ‘Thelwall Viaduct’ case. The contractor had argued that there was no dispute or difference capable of reference to arbitration. However, the CA’s view was that ICE (5th Edition) Clause 66 should not be construed legalistically so as to preclude timely commencement of arbitration proceedings. The CA held the judge’s analysis to have been correct, given the claimant’s resistance to the defective work allegations. Note that Jackson J’s ‘seven propositions’ on the dispute/no dispute issue appear to have been upheld by the CA. Note also that the decision expressly related adjudication cases to arbitration.

Vivian Ramsey QC

John Marrin QC

Simon Hughes

Sarah Hannaford

Balfour Beatty Construction v Serco Ltd [2005] CILL 2232 TCC

Although on the facts Serco was found not to be entitled to set-off sums against the adjudicator’s decision, the judge set out circumstances where set-off might be allowed, which provides an important gloss to Levolux v Ferson.

Timothy Elliott QC

Paul Buckingham

The articles and papers published by Keating Chambers are for the purpose of raising general awareness of issues and stimulating discussion. The contents must not be relied upon or applied in any given situation. There is no substitute for taking appropriate professional advice.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

 
In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.