UK: The JCT 2005 Standard forms of Contract - 31st May 2006

Last Updated: 15 June 2006
Article by Keating Chambers


Residential occupiers and PFI contracts

Resolving residential occupiers’ disputes by David Miles, Glovers and Adjudication and PFI contracts by Dominic Helps, Shadbolts, Construction Law Journal 2006 Vol.22 No.2 p.117
The regular Construction Act Review contributed by Dominic Helps and Peter Sheridan of Shadbolts includes a short piece by David Miles on the Construction Group’s Construction Conciliation Procedure launched in 2003, which is in essence a form of med/arb. Further details can be obtained from the Group’s website at The relevance to adjudication is in the potential lacuna created by the HGCR Act s.106 exclusion of residential occupier disputes from the adjudication regime.

The second part by Dominic Helps is largely a commentary on Midland Expressway v Carillion Construction (Nerys Jefford) and the ‘equivalent project relief’ provisions common in PFI contracts but nevertheless inconsistent with ss.108 and 113 of the HGCR Act.

Construction Law March 2006 Vol.17 Issue 2 contains the following articles:

Construction Act review a missed opportunity
by Tom Wrzesien and Sam Nichols, Taylor Wessing

That’s so unfair!
by Lawrence Davies, Pinsent Masons on Ardmore Construction v Taylor Woodrow

Award of costs: appeal allowed

John Roberts Architects Ltd v Parkcare Homes (No.2) Ltd [2006] CILL 2323 and [2006] BLR 106 CA
The CA reversed the TCC’s decision that an adjudicator had no power to award costs in the event of the adjudication being discontinued. The CA held that it would be very odd if the power to award costs only arose where there was a substantive contested decision. That would mean that either party, having behaved unmeritoriously in advancing claim or defence, could then avoid the consequences of the expense generated by throwing in their hand at the eleventh hour. Therefore under clause 9.2 of CE/99, which had been used to replace clause 29 in the CIC Model Adjudication Procedure 3rd ed used, the adjudicator could award costs "as part of what he had to decide".


William Verry Ltd v Camden London Borough Council [2006] All ER (D) 292 TCC
The defendant council notified the claimant contractor that it was going to deduct from an adjudicator’s award in the contractor’s favour liquidated damages certified as due in the final certificate. The court, applying Levolux v Ferson, held that the overall effect of s.108 HGCR Act was to exclude the right of set-off. The defendant council would be required to comply with the adjudicator’s decision pro tem, although its right to bring proceedings for the alleged breaches would be unaffected.

See Captiva Estates Ltd v Rybarn Ltd under Keating Chambers Reported Cases on exclusion of development agreements from the HGCR Act’s adjudication provisions.

See All in One Building v Makers UK under Keating Chambers Reported Cases on existence of a dispute in adjudication.

See Quietfield v Vascroft Contractors under Keating Chambers Reported Cases on failure to consider new evidence in subsequent adjudication.

See Capital Structures v Time & Tide Construction under Keating Chambers Reported Cases on the refusal of enforcement of an adjudication decision under a contract allegedly void for duress.

Construction Law Vol. 17 Issue 3 April 2006 contains the following articles:

Enforcing adjudicator’s decisions
by Sam Bailey, Pinsent Masons (on Bryen & Langley v Boston)

How dangerous is using your initiative?
by Paul Newman, Hugh James (on Rankilor v Igoe)

A motorway pile-up
by Fraser Morrison, Pinsent Masons (on Midland Expressway v Carillion Construction) (Nerys Jefford)

DTI HGCRA proposals

Improving payment practices in the construction industry BLM Vol. 23 No.4 p.1
This is a summary of the Department of Trade & Industry’s paper of January 16 2006 analysing responses to its earlier consultation exercise on reform of the HGCR Act and setting out the Government’s proposals and pay-when-certified clauses, periods of suspension, trustee stakeholder accounts, adjudicators’ entitlement to payment where they stand down, costs and a power to re-open ‘final and conclusive’ decisions.

DTI Consultation

Construction Act Review by Dominic Helps and Peter Sheridan, Shadbolts, Construction Law Journal 2006 Vol.22 No.3 p.176
The regular HGCR Act column considers the responses to the DTI consultation exercise under the three principal headings of payment framework (adequate payment mechanism under s.110, removal of s.110 notices, applications for payment, content of withholding notices and pay-when-certified clauses). Other payment proposals (s.112 suspension and remobilisation, outlawing cross-contract set-off, pay-when-paid clauses in insolvency, staged payments) Adjudication (outlawing trustee stakeholder account suspensions, adjudicator’s powers on own jurisdiction, ‘final and conclusive’ decisions on interim payments, adjudicators’ immunity and adjudicator independence.)

Proper responding parties to adjudication

Michael John Construction Ltd v Golledge [2006] TCLR T3 TCC
Where a construction contract was concluded between a contractor and an unincorporated club, it was signed by trustees of the club. The contractor referred payment problems to adjudication and obtained awards in its favour. The defendant trustees resisted enforcement on the ground that the adjudicator had no jurisdiction to bind the trustees since, under the club’s constitution, the proper responding parties were each and every club member and that the second reference comprised two disputes. The court rejected the defendant’s arguments: the club’s constitution was irrelevant as between the contracting parties and it would be contrary to the purpose of adjudication if simple disputes were required to be separated into individual components.


Refusal of mediation

Wethered Estate Ltd v Davis [2006] BLR 86 Ch.Div.
This is a relatively rare example of refusal of mediation being approved by the court. Defendants parked every day on the claimant’s property and the claimants refused to mediate until they stopped and the issues in dispute were clarified. Mediation proved unsuccessful and the claimants won at trial. The court rejected the defendants’ submission that the claimants were not entitled to their costs because of refusal of mediation. It was certainly reasonable to refuse mediation until the vehicle was removed. While often it would not be reasonable to wait until litigation proceeded before agreeing to mediation, here the defendants had failed to show that the claimants were unreasonable in wanting the issues defined.

Lawyers’ mediation experience

Mediation outcomes: lawyers’ experience with commercial and construction mediation in the United Kingdom by Penny Brooker, University of Wolverhampton and Anthony Lavers, Pepperdine University Dispute Resolution Law Journal 2005 Vol.5 p.161.
The article reports on the final phase of a three year study at Oxford Brookes University of the role of lawyers in the development of ADR, drawing on US and Canadian studies. Whereas reaching settlement is typically regarded as the measure of success, this research, deriving from interviews with 30 lawyers experienced in mediation, focuses on other mediation outcomes. These include assisting the parties in narrowing the issues in dispute, testing the strengths and weaknesses of cases and sending messages to opponents. Tactical considerations revealed in the interviews are explored.

Related Disputes

City & General (Holborn) Ltd v AYH Ltd [2006] BLR 66 TCC
The issue arose from the refusal of project manager AYH to concur in the appointment to hear disputes between them and their clients of an arbitrator who had already been appointed to hear disputes between the client and the main contractor. The court exercised its discretion under s.18 Arbitration Act 1996 to appoint the same arbitrator, given that a material number of the issues were the same or substantially connected with those in the dispute already referred to arbitration. The commercial purpose of the arbitration clause was clearly that such related disputes should be heard by the same arbitrator, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings.

Arbitration International 2006 Vol. 22 No. 1 contains the following articles:

Law and practice of escalation clauses
by Klaus Peter Berger, University of Cologne

The timely arbitrator: reflections on the Bockstiegel Method
by Jan Paulsson, Freshfields, Paris

Nothing if not critical for Investment Treaty Arbitration: Occidental, EureKo and Methanex
by Zachary Douglas, Matrix Chambers

A principal approach to adjourning the decision to enforce under the Model Law and the New York Convention
by Gerald Ghikas, Borden Ladner Gervais, Vancouver

The essential judge: the role of the courts in a system of national and international commercial arbitration
by Markham Ball, International Law Institute, Washington DC

Arbitration and criminal law: reflections on the duties of the arbitrator
by Alexis Mourre, Paris Bar

Swire Properties revisited: appeal on a question of law arising out of an arbitration award in Hong Kong
by Gu Weixia

The status and operation of unilateral or optional arbitration clauses
by Simon Nesbitt, Lovells and Henry Quinlan, Skadden Arps

Enforcement of foreign arbitral awards: application of the public policy rule in Russia
by Diana Tapola, Tikkurila Group, Finland

The Journal of International Arbitration Vol. 23 No. 2 April 2006 contains the following articles:

Provisional enforcement of international arbitral awards made in France – the dilatory effect of the French set-aside application
by Alan Farhad

New Arbitration Acts in Denmark and Spain
by Ana Lopez-Rodriguez, University of Aarhus

Arbitration agreements in China: battles on designation of arbitral institution and ad hoc arbitration
by Jian Zhou, University of Wisconia

Towards finality of arbitral awards: two steps forward and one step back
by Alexis Mourre, Castaldi Mourre Sprague and Luca Radicati di Brozolo, Bonelli, Eredo, Pappalardo.

ACICA’s new International Arbitration Rules
by Simon Greenberg, Decherts, Paris

The International Construction Law Review Vol. 23 Part 2
contains the following articles:

Balancing sovereignty and the contractor’s rights in international construction arbitrations involving state entities
by Philip Dunham and Simon Greenberg, Decherts, Paris

Pakistan’s construction disputes at ICSID
by Syed Bulant Sohail, Orr Dignam & Co, Karachi

The new CIETAC Rules and Enforceability of agreements to negotiate and mediate: where does Hong Kong stand?
both by David Bateson and Kim Barton, Mallesons Stephen Jaques, Hong Kong.

Arbitration Law Monthly Vol.6 No.5 May 2006
contains the following articles:

Jurisdiction on Primetrade v Yrhan Ltd (loss of the right to challenge jurisdiction).

Parties to the arbitration on AMB Generali Holding v SEB Trygg Liv Holding (proceedings commenced in the wrong name).

Enforcement of arbitration awards on Svenska Petroleum v Republic of Lithuania (enforcement of awards against states)

Agreement to arbitrate on AXA Re v Ace Global Markets (incorporation of a clause by reference)

Combination of arbitration proceedings on City & General v AYH (appointment of a common arbitrator).

International Arbitration Law Review Vol.9 Issue 2 April 2006 contains the following articles:

State immunity and arbitration
by Hakeem Seriki, DLA Piper Rudnick and Mark Beeley, Vinson & Elkins

Arbitration in the finance sector: avoiding the ‘Italian torpedo’
by Simon James and Robert Lambert, Clifford Chance

International character of disputes as a requirement to the validity of arbitral agreements and awards
by Edin Karakas, Zuric i Partneri

Consolidation by stealth: a case study
by Paul Dillon and Peter Limbert, Hammonds

Are you in? Or are you out? An analysis of Section 69 of the English Arbitration Act 1996: appeals on a question of law
by Taner Dedezade, Tanfield Chambers


PFI Contract Obligations

London Bus Services Ltd v Tramtrack Croydon Ltd [2006] All ER (D) 259 Commercial Court
Under a PFI contract, the defendant Tramtrack, a private sector concessionaire, agreed to operate the Croydon tram system. The claimant brought proceedings seeking interpretation of the agreement and specifically whether the defendant was obliged to provide a 33% increase in passenger carrying capacity. The court held that the defendant was obliged to enhance carrying capacity, but only insofar as specifically provided in the contract.

See Shawton Engineering v DGP International under Keating Chambers Reported Cases on circumstances allowing termination for delay in performance.

Temporary Disconformity

Temporary disconformity in construction and engineering contracts
by Ellis Baker and Anthony Lavers, White & Case, Construction Law Journal [2006] Vol. 22 No. 281
This is a published version of the authors’ Society of Construction Law presentation considering situations where, during the currency of a project, the works do not comply with the contract requirements and the legal consequences flowing from that, specifically whether the owner is entitled to a remedy against the contractor. The ‘temporary disconformity’ argument has met resistance in the English courts, but has been applied in other common law jurisdictions. The authors conclude that it has a role to play in dealing with the regulation of the relationship between the parties.

Delay and disruption

Disruption and delay: fair entitlement and the regulation of risk
by Patrick Lane SC Construction Law Journal [2006] Vol. 22 No. 292
The article looks at causes of delay and disruption and issues of causation and allocation of risk, comparing the FIDIC Red Book 4th edition with the 1999 FIDIC General Conditions, largely to the latter’s disfavour and considering provisions of the SCL Protocol and relevant case law. The conclusion is that greater certainty is needed in contractual provision for allocation of risk and especially the mechanism for dealing with applications for extensions of time and compensation for delay and disruption.

Construction Law March 2006 Vol. 17 Issue contains the following articles:

Minor Works drops archaic words
by Michael Phipps, Thurston Consultants

Construction Law – review of 2005
by Chris O’Carroll, Pinsent Masons

Frameworks fail to fit with Europe
by David Mosey, Trowers & Hamlins
(on the new NEC3 Framework Agreement)

Insolvency does not affect final date for payment
by Shona Frame, MacRoberts

Technology and Construction Court Guide
by Paul Newman, Hugh James

Professional indemnity – pitfalls for the unwary
by John Wright, JD Risk Associates

The International Construction Law Review Vol. 23 Part 2 contains the following articles:

Calculation of a reasonable time to complete when time is at large
by Keith Pickavance, Hill International

Construction loans in Israel: bank’s liability towards third parties
by Ruth Plato-Shinar, Netanya Academic College

Public Private Partnerships – the new Greek law
by Panagiotis Verveniotis, Verveniotis & Partners, Athens

The Mitcham-Frankston Project: streets ahead of City-Link?
by Lawrence Mahaffy, BOS International

Recent legal developments in China on the use of bonds
by Rico Chan, Baker & McKenzie, Hong Kong

Standard construction contract forms; statutory and regulatory changes; case law (England and Wales)
by Martin Bridgewater, Nicholas Downing and Marina Milner, Herbert Smith, London

Construction Law Vol. 17 Issue 3 April 2006 contains the following articles:

Systematic contracts increase clarity
by Michael Phipps, Thurston Consultants (on JCT Intermediate Form 2005)

Liability insurance – what constitutes an event?
by John Wright, JD Risk Associates

Saints or Sinners?
by John Sheils, Shadbolt & Co (on partnering contracts)

Corporate homicide – diverging solutions
by Edward McHugh, Dundas & Wilson

‘Equivalent project relief’ in PFI – is there a future?
by Hamish Lal, Four New Square (on Midland Expressway v Carillion) (Nerys Jefford)

Direct costs and directly incurred losses

Robertson Group (Construction) Ltd v Amey Miller (Edinburgh) Ltd [2006] BLM Vol.23 No.4 p.4 Court of Session Inner House
The Inner House dismissed the appeal from the decision of the Outer House reported in BLR. The case concerned the interpretation of the words "all direct costs and directly incurred losses" as contained in a letter of intent, which purported to limit the extent of reimbursement claimable by the contractors against the Joint Venture on a school PFI project in Edinburgh. The Outer House had held that failure to make a profit should be accounted a loss in calculating damages for breach of contract. Costs in the sense of expenditure and losses would be recoverable under the contractual formula. The costs or losses, to be ‘direct’ or ‘directly incurred’ would have to be such as arise naturally in the usual course of things from the relevant event: in this case, the instructions for works under the letter of intent. The Inner House, dismissing the appeal, held that the meaning of reasonableness of sums recoverable for the purposes of damages was an issue best resolved at trial.

See Scheldebouw BV v St James Homes under Keating Chambers Reported Cases on requirement of impartiality and fairness in contract administration.


Design liability

Ove Arup & Partners International Ltd v Mirant Asia-Pacific Construction [2006] CILL 2325 CA

This is the CA’s decision dismissing the appeal by Arup against the TCC’s decision noted in KC In Brief 2005. The CA held that Arup, the defendant designers, who had been working on a power station project in the Philippines, were in breach of their obligation under the design agreement to verify their design assumptions as to the load-bearing capacity of the site. The CILL Editors note that, following Yorkshire Water Services v Taylor Woodrow (Timothy Elliott QC and Gideon Scott Holland), the defendants would have a ‘distinctly uphill task’ in trying to persuade the CA to interfere with a specialist judge’s findings in a complex technical case. The CA upheld the TCC in finding that Arup had a duty to verify design assumptions which they had breached and that the judge’s findings on causation of the foundation failure were justified and not amenable to appeal.

See Plymouth & South West Co-operative Society v Architecture Structure and Management Ltd under Keating Chambers Reported Cases on an architect’s failure to advise on contract structure and cost saving.


Draft judgments
Gurney Consulting Engineers v Gleeds Health & Safety Ltd [2006] All ER (D) 381 TCC

Where an action is compromised before a draft judgment has been issued, the court, as a court of first instance, has no discretion to publish the draft. If it had, any discretion would have to be exercised against publication if either party objected to it. In addition, where judgment is reserved, the parties and their professional advisers have a duty to inform the court immediately of any development which may make it necessary for judgment to be delivered.

Acceptance of Part 36 offer

Hawley v Luminar Leisure Plc [2006] Times Law Reports 14 February CA

The defendant’s purported acceptance of a Part 36 offer after the end of the hearing and the judge having reserved judgment came too late. There is even a strong case for saying that a Part 36 offer is subject to an implied term that it is only open for acceptance until the hearing commences, because the risks inherent in litigation often alter significantly at or after that point. But it is certainly the law that a Part 36 offer is subject to an implied term that it is not open for acceptance so late as after the close of the hearing.

See Bella Casa Ltd v Vinestone Ltd under Keating Chambers Reported Cases on the measure of damages for deprivation of use of a building.

Late payment of insurance claims

Damages for late payment of insurance claims

by Colin Ying, University of Technology, Sydney, Law Quarterly Review April 2006 Vol. 122 p.205

The author argues that the traditional English law position that damages are not recoverable for late payment of an insurance claim should be reconsidered, in the light of decisions in the courts of Australia and New Zealand and on grounds of logic and commercial reality. Even in times of low inflation, the value of money changes. His conclusion is that "the basis exists in principle to give an insured damages for consequential loss resulting from non-payment of a valid claim".

Costs assessment in TCC

Robert Cunningham v Collett & Farmer [2006] BLR 97 TCC
The costs hearing of a professional negligence action by clients against their architects resulted in a finding that both parties’ costs summaries should be reduced. The editors of the BLR describe the case as "a useful practical example of the assessment process that a judge of the Technology and Construction Court will undertake when presented with costs bills for summary assessment." HH Judge Coulson had to deal with changes of legal advisors and allegations that one of the claimants was unable to appear due to unfitness under the Mental Health Act. The defendants were represented in the trial by Justin Mort.

Pre-action offers and costs

EQ Projects Ltd v Javid Alavi [2006] BLR 130 TCC
Where the claimant had failed to beat the payment into court, which had been increased just before trial, the defendant was entitled to its costs, even though there had been a late amendment to the defence. The claimant could get its costs for the actual amendment, but indemnity costs would be awarded for the trial, since the claimant pursued its case unreasonably when it should have been obvious that it could not beat the payment in.

TCC Annual Report

Annual Report for the Technology and Construction Court 2004/5
by Mr. Justice Jackson, Construction Law Journal 2006 Vol.22 No.3 p.149
The report sets out the post-reshuffle personnel of the TCC in London and nationwide and analyses the categories of the 364 new claims brought in the London TCC. The main categories are: Construction 119, Adjudication enforcement 56, Professional Negligence 46 and Dilapidations 23. There were 15 IT cases. There were 114 cases in Birmingham, 94 in Salford and 50 in Leeds. The 2nd edition of the TCC Guide is summarised.

Essential documents

What documents are really needed in order to resolve a construction dispute? by Roberta Downey, Lovells, Construction Law Journal 2006 Vol.22 No.3 p.160
The author provides brief guidance on the documents generated in the construction process, the purpose for which they are created and subsequently used, disclosure and presentation to a tribunal and the perils of swamping the tribunal with documents. The article is notable for a summary of documentary requirements from the FIDIC Silver Book (and PPC 2000, NEC and JCT) and for a ‘quick-guide’ to the documents needed to measure delay and the cost of delay.

Damages for trespass

Horsford v Bird [2006] Con LJ Vol.22 No.3 p.187 Privy Council
Already reported in BLM this was an appeal from the Court of Appeal of Jamaica. The defendant owner’s contractors had encroached onto the claimant’s property in Antigua in constructing a boundary wall and fence. The claimant got damages, although not an injunction to demolish, at trial but the Jamaican CA reduced the damages payable, disallowing aggravated damages. The Privy Council also rejected the claim for aggravated damages; taking unsustainable points in defence did not constitute ‘high-handed, insulting or oppressive’ conduct, although it might go to costs. However, the Privy Council allowed the claimant’s appeal on quantum. The value of the land should be the starting point, plus the value of the enhancement of the amenities of the defendant’s house.

ADR in Pre-action Protocol

41st Update of the Civil Procedure Rules, April 2006.
This Update inserts the following wording into all Pre-action Protocols and their Practice Statements:

"The Courts take the view that litigation should be a last resort, and that claims should not be issued prematurely when a settlement is still being actively explored. Parties are warned that if the Protocol is not followed (including this paragraph) then the Court must have regard to such conduct when determining costs."


All in One Building & Refurbishments Ltd v Makers UK Ltd [2006] CILL 2321 TCC
This is an application of AMEC Civil Engineering v Secretary of State (Vivian Ramsey QC, Simon Hughes, John Marrin QC, Sarah Hannaford). In an adjudication dispute arising from non-payment under a refurbishment contract, the court held that, while a contract might prescribe when payment fell due, thus providing guidance on whether a claim was denied, it could not be determinative of the point at which a dispute arose. The court also rejected criticisms of how the adjudicator dealt with apparent contradictions in evidence: these were not matters for the court.
Calum Lamont

Quietfield Ltd v Vascroft Contractors Ltd [2006] CILL 2329 and [2006] BLM Vol. 23 No. 47 TCC
In the first adjudication, the adjudicator had held that Vascroft had failed to show entitlement to an extension of time. Quietfield subsequently began a second and then a third adjudication and the (same) adjudicator held that he was bound by his original finding and refused to consider Vascroft’s new evidence challenging it. Quietfield commenced enforcement proceedings in the TCC but the court held that the adjudicator had been wrong not to consider the new evidence in the third adjudication.

Matthew Holt
Abdul Jinadu

Plymouth and South West Co-operative Society Ltd v Architecture Structure and Management Ltd [2006] All ER (D) 175
The claimant clients succeeded in their action against the defendant architects for professional negligence in failing to advise of a suitable contract strategy and failing to advise on cost saving opportunities during the works. Accordingly, the additional costs incurred plus the cost savings ignored were recoverable.
Paul Darling QC
Justin Mort

Bella Casa Ltd v Vinestone Ltd [2006] BLR 72 and [2006] TCLR 2 TCC
The TCC had to consider the measure of damages in respect of deprivation of use of a residential building following allegedly defective design and construction work. The court held that such matters as service charges and utility bills might be recoverable in principle, but that general damages calculated by reference to interest on the balance of the purchase price could not be recovered as contrary to principle.
Finola O’Farrell QC
Justin Mort

Captiva Estates Ltd v Rybarn Ltd [2006] BLR 66 TCC
An option agreement on a residential development site was held to be a development agreement within the meaning of the Construction Contracts Exclusion Order 1998 and thus excluded from the operation of the adjudication provisions of the HGCR Act. It therefore followed that the adjudicator had no jurisdiction and the adjudication was invalid.
Justin Mort

Shawton Engineering Ltd v DGP International Ltd [2006] Con LJ Vol. 22 No. 2 p. 129 CA
Already reported in BLR and noted in KC In Brief March 2006, this case arose from a design sub-sub-contract relating to a process plant at Sellafield for handling nuclear waste. The issue arose as to the circumstances in which a contracting party could lawfully terminate a contract for delay in performance where the obligation was to complete within a reasonable time. The appellant sub-contractor was unsuccessful in the appeal.
David Thomas QC
Adam Constable

ERDC Group Ltd v Brunel University [2006] All ER (D) 468 TCC
Formal execution of the contract documents being deferred until after planning permission was obtained, work proceeded under a series of letters of appointment and then continued after their expiry. The claimant’s contractor claimed entitlement on the basis of quantum meruit for work done. The defendant denied that this should be assessed on a cost-plus basis and argued that defective work should be taken into account. The court rejected the defendant’s right to set-off sums owing, but accepted that the quantum meruit should reflect any sub-standard work and an allowance for delay. The basis for the quantum meruit would be primarily reference to the rates and prices in the earlier work.
Simon Hargreaves

Scheldebouw BV v St James Homes [2006] BLR 113 TCC
This concerned the issue of independence of the contract administrator. The TCC held that the client could not itself replace its construction manager in the administration of trade contracts for cladding in the Grosvenor Waterside development. The court considered that this would be inconsistent with a decision maker’s obligation of impartiality, fairness and honesty and could only be achieved by express contractual provision.

Note that Jackson J was here obliged to consider issues, albeit on different facts, left over from Costain v Bechtel (David Thomas QC), in which he also presided.
Simon Hughes

Capital Structures plc v Time & Tide Construction Ltd [2006] BLM Vol. 23 No. 410 TCC
Already noted in KC In Brief March 2006, this decides that the adjudication provisions in a contract would be lost if, as alleged later, the contract itself, a settlement agreement, was void for economic duress. If the effect was that there was no valid contract, the adjudication provision had become void, so the adjudicator would have no jurisdiction to hear disputes, including the question as to whether there had been economic duress. Accordingly, it would not be appropriate to grant summary judgment for enforcement of the decision.
Simon Hargreaves

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.

This material is prepared for Chambers by our Director of Research and Professional Development, Professor Anthony Lavers (LL.B. M.Phil Ph.D. MCI.Arb MRICS Barrister) Visiting Professor of Law, Oxford Brookes University.

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

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

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
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
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (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

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’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.


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.


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 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.


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.


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.


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.


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

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

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

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