UK: Case Law Review

Last Updated: 7 April 2008
Article by Keating Chambers


No signature of award needed

Treasure & Son Ltd v Dawes [2008] BLR 24 TCC

Already reported in CILL, the defendant owner failed in an attempt to argue that an adjudicator's decision was invalid because it had not been signed. There was no such implied term; it was neither reasonable nor necessary to imply a term that the decision had to be signed. The decision was also made on the question whether an oral variation of the contract affected its status as a written agreement; it was held that it did not; provided the contract was in writing, oral variations would not undermine enforceability.

Interim payment provisions

PC Harrington Contractors Ltd v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd [2008] BLR 16 TCC

A sub-contract on the Wembley Stadium project contained provisions for interim payments. Following a dispute between main contractor Multiplex and concrete sub-contractor Harrington, Multiplex referred the matter to adjudication. Harrington argued that on the figures which it claimed were established, it should start the adjudication with £2.3 million in hand and issued proceedings claiming a declaration to that effect. Refusing the declaration, the court held that the provisions comprised a scheme for making interim payments, not for establishing the ultimate position as between the parties.

See Pierce Design International v Johnson under Keating Chambers Reported Cases on failure to make payment without withholding notice, following Melville Dundas v George Wimpey.

See RC Pillar v The Camber under Keating Chambers Reported Cases on parties' agreement to increase the ad hoc jurisdiction of the adjudicator.

See Ringway Infrastructure Services v Vauxhall Motors under Keating Chambers Reported Cases on interest claimable for failure to honour adjudicator's award.

Agreement in writing

Hatmet Ltd v Herbert [2008] 115 Con LR 95 TCC

The defendant in adjudication proceedings argued that there could not be a contract for the purposes of s.107(2) HGCR Act because there was no agreement as to price. However, the court held that there was a written agreement and that the implication of a term as to price by s.15 of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act was sufficient to make this an enforceable contract and thus a construction contract under which the adjudicator had jurisdiction.

See Ringway Infrastructure Services v Vauxhall Motors under Keating Chambers Reported Cases on interest claimable for failure to honour adjudicator's award.

Food production exclusion

Hortimax Ltd v Hedon Salads Ltd [2008] Construction Law Journal Vol. 24 No. 1 p.47 TCC

Commercial growing of cucumbers was held to be production of food and thus covered by the s.105(2)(c)(ii) exception to the scope of 'construction operations'. However, power had been expressly conferred on the adjudicator to rule on his own jurisdiction and so the right to challenge adjudication had been waived.

Late decisions

Lateness of adjudicators' decisions: still a hot topic

by Peter Sheridan and Dominic Helps, Shadbolts, Construction Law Journal 2008 Vol. 24 No. 1 p.30

The regular Construction Act Review revisits a subject last treated by the authors two years previously. It refers to a 'flurry' of cases during that period, which are reviewed in the article. They are Hart Investments v Fidler, Cubitt Building & Interiors v Fleetglade (Alan Steynor), Epping Electrical v Briggs & Forrester (David Thomas QC), Aveat Heating Jerram Falkus Construction (William Webb), Mott MacDonald Ltd v London & Regional Properties (Alexander Nissen QC) and AC Yule & Son v Speedwell Roofing & Cladding.

The authors conclude that the cases do not cast doubt on the principle that adjudicators' decisions must be reached within the statutory or extended time limits. They highlight uncertainty as to the meaning of 'reaching' a decision and 'communicating' it.

Natural justice

Cantillon Ltd v Uravsco Ltd [2008] All ER (D) 406 TCC

In a piling dispute referred to adjudication, the defendant refused to meet a decision against it and the claimant brought enforcement proceedings. The defendant argued unsuccessfully that the adjudicator had breached the rules of natural justice; the court held that if one party argued a point and the other failed to address it that was not the adjudicator's fault. In ascertaining what the dispute comprised, the claimant was not limited to matters raised before it crystallised.

See Reinwood v L. Brown under Keating Chambers Reported Cases on the employer's right to deduct LADs where a certificate of non-completion had been cancelled.

Arbitration And Dispute Resolution

Injunction against arbitration

Republic of Kazakhstan v Istil Group Inc [2008] BLR 37 Commercial Court

The claimant state succeeded in its action for an injunction to stop the defendants' pursuit of its claim in arbitration. The defendants had failed to appeal against the findings of a supervisory court on jurisdiction and so the court would not allow the matter to go back to the tribunal, which might unacceptably prefer its own view on jurisdiction to that of the court, leading to its award being set aside. It was therefore just and convenient to prevent the arbitration from proceeding.

Arbitrator wrong to ignore enforcement decision

Michael John Construction Ltd v St Peters Rugby Football Club [2008] 115 Con LR 134 TCC

A challenge under s.67 of the Arbitration Act was successful. The arbitrator had been wrong in law to ignore a judgment in enforcement of an adjudication and whether further evidence could be adduced. The adjudication decision, on the proper responding parties, was reported in 2006. Only in exceptional circumstances should a party be allowed to re-open in an arbitration matters already decided by a Court.

Judicial challenge

Arbitration update – the limit of the courts' interference

by Nicholas Dennys QC, Atkin Chambers, Construction Law Journal 2008 Vol. 24 No. 1 p.3

Based on an early 2007 paper, the article therefore does not deal with Fiona Trust v Privalov in the House of Lords, as is acknowledged, although the CA decision is included. There is some discussion of West Tankers v RAS Riunione Adriatica di Sicurta and also of Sumukan v Commonwealth Secretariat. Two domestic cases are referred to: Kershaw Mechanical Services v Kendrick and Taylor Woodrow Holdings v Barnes & Elliott, (Richard Fernyhough QC and Elizabeth Repper).

Journal of International Arbitration Vol. 25 No. 1 February 2008

contains the following articles:

Antitrust/Competition arbitration in EU versus US law

by Georgios Zekos

New keys to arbitration in Latin America

by Paul Mason and Mauricio Gomm-Santos

Denunciation of the Washington Convention and non-contractual investment arbitration: 'manufacturing consent' to ICSID Arbitration?

by Julien Fouret, Salans, Paris

The most-favoured-nation clause in international investment agreements

by Alejandro Faya Rodriguez

Chorzow's standard rejuvenated: assessing damages in investment treaty arbitrations

by Manuel Abdala and Pablo Spiller

The China-style closed panel system in an arbitral tribunal formation

by Weixia Gu, University of Hong Kong

Enforcement regimes and grounds for foreign judgments and awards in Russia

by Diana Tapola

The decision-making mechanism of the arbitrator vis-à-vis the judge

by Mauro Rubino-Sammartano

Discovery, judicial assistance and arbitration: a new tool for cases involving US entities?

by Peter Rutledge, Columbus Law School

A procedural road map for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Romania

by Irina Pongracz and Illeana Smeureanu

Construction Newsletter February 2008

contains the following articles:

An affront to rights

by Paul Newman, 3 Paper Buildings

(on the role of arbitration in resolving construction disputes)

The sky's the limit – what will auditors do next?

by Gareth Parry, McGrigors

(on the impact of the Companies Act 2006 on auditors' liability)

Arbitration Law Monthly Vol. 8 No. 3 March 2008

contains the following articles:

Removal of arbitrator

(on ASM Shipping v Harris: justifiable doubts as to impartiality)


(on Republic of Ecuador v Occidental Exploration and Production Co: scope of a Bilateral Investment Treaty)

Freezing orders

(on Swift Fortune v Magnifica Marine: discretion)

Validity of arbitration clause

(on Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v ST-CMS Electric Co: public policy – Indian law)

Challenging an award

(on London Underground v Citylink Telecommunications: irregularity and error of law)


(on Michael John Construction v St. Peter's Rugby Football Club: effect of enforcement of adjudication)

International Arbitration Law Review 2008 Vol. 11 Issue 1

contains the following articles:

Using US courts in aid of arbitration proceedings in other countries

by John Fellas, Hughes Hubbard & Reed, New York

Anti-suit injunctions in support of international arbitration in the United States and the United Kingdom

by Arif Ali and Katherine Nesbitt, Crowell & Moring, Washington DC and Jane Wessel, Crowell & Moring, London

Arbitrator disclosure: an active but unsettled year

by Mark Kantor

Arbitral jurisdiction in the United States: who decides what?

by William Park, Boston University

Class action arbitrations

by William Slate and Eric Tuchmann, American Arbitration Association

The new frontier of Investor-State arbitration: annulment of NAFTA awards

by Carolyn Lamm, Eckhard Hellbeck and Chiara Giorgetti, White & Case, Washington DC.

Arbitration (The Journal of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators) Vol. 74 No. 1 February 2008

contains the following articles:

The view from an international arbitration customer: in dire need of early resolution

by Michael McIlwraith and Roland Schroeder, GE Oil & Gas

Anti-suit injunctions and the recoverability of legal costs as damages for breach of an arbitration agreement

by Justin Michaelson and Gordon Blanke, SJ Berwin, London

Confronting the matrix: do the IBA Rules require amendment to deal with the challenges posed by electronically stored information?

by Nicholas Tse and Natasha Peter, Gide Loyrette Nouel

ADR's coming of age in the work place

by Stephen Hardy, 9 St. John Street, Manchester

Forum non conveniens in the context of international commercial arbitration

by Peter Gillies, Macquarie University

Arbitration class action waivers in the United States and Canada

by Steven Caplow, Davis Wright Tremaine, Seattle

Arbitrating competition law cases

by Emanuela Lecchi and Michael Cover, Charles Russell, London

Public policy as a ground for setting aside an award: is Zimbabwe out of step?

by Quentin Tannock, University of Zimbabwe

The enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Indonesia: a comment on Karaha Bodas Co. LLC v Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara

by Sam Luttrell, Murdoch University

Guideline on arbitrations involving consumers and parties with significant differences of resources

The enforcement of adjudicators' awards under the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996: Part 26

by Kenneth Salmon, Mace & Jones, Manchester

Renewed support for arbitration: the House of Lords reaffirms key Court of Appeal decision

(on Fiona Trust v Privalov) by Hew Dundas

Contract And Procurement Law

Tender Contract

Scott v Belfast Education and Library Board [2007] BLM Vol. 25 No. 2 p.1, NICh.

Already reported in Con LR, the court had to consider as a preliminary issue whether the tender documents gave rise to a tender contract with an implied term of fairness and good faith and whether a material ambiguity would breach that requirement. Good faith not being argued, the court held that there was an implied term as to fairness and that it would require the absence of any material ambiguity which would significantly affect the tender.

Construction Law Vol. 19 Issue 2 March 2008

contains the following articles:

Counsels of perfection can be practical

by Michael Phipps, Thurston Consultants

(on the JCT 2005 editions)

FIDIC rainbow goes golden

by Will Buckby, Shadbolt & Co

(on the DBO Gold Book)

Dispute resolution clauses get some teeth

by David Toscano, Taylor Wessing

(on Douglas Harper v Interchange Group)

Insurance under government contracts

by John Wright, JD Risk Associates

No contract – no adjudication

by Paul Newman, 3 Paper Buildings

Collaborators will not be shot

by John Sheils, Shadbolt & Co

(on Collaborative Law)

Public Procurement Law Review 2008 No. 2

contains the following articles:

The revision of the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement: to what extent might it contribute to the expansion of current membership?

by Valeria Guimaraes de Lima e Silva

The SBLR Program: small businesses and 'individuals' on the cutting edge

by Damien Specht, Jenner & Block, Washington DC

Construction And Engineering Contract Disputes Law

Name on collateral warranty

Royal Insurance (UK) Ltd v Amec Construction Scotland Ltd [2008] BLR 53 Court of Session Outer House

Where the beneficiary of a collateral warranty had transferred its business to other members of the same group of companies, the collateral warranty was still enforceable against the warrantor. In Scotland, the problem of title to sue could be cured by simple amendment. The BLR Editors comment that "By a slightly different route, the same result would have been reached in England", presumably referring to assignment of contractual rights.

Concurrent delay

City Inn Ltd v Shepherd Construction Ltd [2008] CILL 2537 Outer House Court of Session

Where concurrent delay had been caused by the architect and contractor, extension of time and loss and expense should be dealt with on the principle of a reasonable apportionment. The CILL editors describe this as going "further than any recent authority" on concurrency and likely to be of comfort to contractors. Employers and certifiers will be concerned by the findings on waiver of procedural requirements/time bars. While important, it is a Scots case and needs to be considered in the context of the Steria case also noted in this issue.

See Steria Ltd v Sigma Wireless Communications Ltd under Keating Chambers Reported Cases on time bars/conditions precedent and concurrency.

Termination and Force Majeure in Singapore

RDC Concrete Pte Ltd v Sato Kogyo (s) Pte Ltd [2008] 115 Con LR 154 Singapore CA [2008] BLM Vol. 25 No. 2

The main contractor Sato Kogyo was entitled to terminate a sub-contract for supply of concrete because of the supplier's continued failure to supply and sub-standard supply, on a MRT Circle Line station project. The suppliers' arguments of force majeure based on raw materials shortages and plant breakdowns failed; neither constituted force majeure. The court considered meaning of 'direct loss' within the termination provisions and held supplier entitled to suspend supply due to contractor's unjustified imposition of 6% administrative charge on its payments.

Indemnity Clause

Westerngeco Ltd v ATP Oil & Gas (UK) Ltd [2008] 115 Con LR 84 Commercial Court

In construing an indemnity clause under an oil industry survey contract, the court held that the contractor could not rely on a liability cap for damage done by the contractor to a third party. The contractor's liability was capped at the total amount of payments received for the work, with provision for the client to indemnify the contractor for anything above that amount. However, damage done by the contractor to the third party was not to be regarded as liability under the contract, so the indemnity would not apply.

Construction Law Vol. 19 Issue 2 March 2008

contains the following articles:

Courts look down on top down approach

by Ann Levin and Michael Mendelblat, Herbert Smith

Recoverability of management charges

by Shona Frame, MacRoberts

See Tyco Fire & Integrated Solutions v Rolls Royce under Keating Chambers Reported Cases on contractual requirement for joint names insurance for specified perils

General And Professional Negligence

No loss from solicitor's error

Veitch v Avery [2008] 115 Con LR 70 CA

Although the claimants succeeded in establishing that their solicitors had been professionally negligent in advising that they had no defence to a possession order for their hotel, they were awarded nominal damages as the court, since the business which they had lost was not viable. The Court of Appeal provided useful discussion on the need for a 'loss of a chance' to be based on a real possibility rather than speculation and confirmed that the measure of loss in negligence cases should be normally quantified as at the date of breach of duty, although there can be exceptions.

Waste re-processing

United Utilities Water plc v Environment Agency [2008] 115 Con LR 1 HL

The appellant operated a sewage treatment plant facility that converted waste water to sludge for onward processing. The Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 require all facilities involved in the disposal of non-hazardous waste by biological or physico-chemical treatment to be licensed by the Agency. The appellant argued the distinction between recovery and disposal of sludge, maintaining that, since it only had an intermediate role and did not ultimately dispose of the waste, it should not require a licence. In dismissing its appeal, the House of Lords looked to the purpose of the statute, which was to protect the environment against potential damage from waste disposal operations.

Black hole cases

Black hole cases by David Friedman QC, Construction Law Journal [2008] Vol. 24 No. 1 p.10

This is a review of the case law from Dawson v Great Northern and GUS Property Management v Littlewoods via the modern construction cases such as Linden Gardens (Richard Fernyhough QC and Marcus Taverner QC), Darlington v Wiltshier and Panatown (Stephen Furst QC and Alexander Nissen QC) to the latest decision of the CA in Offer-Hoar v Larkstore (Christopher Thomas QC and Gaynor Chambers) which is extensively considered. The author's recommendation is a prohibition on assignment to avoid liability arising by assignment, as in the Larkstore case.

Res Ipsa Loquitur

Drake v Harbour [2008] BLM Vol. 25 No. 2 p.6 CA

Already reported in BLR, the action was for damages arising from a fire in a private house. It had occurred during the night after re-wiring work was carried out. The claimant owner had vacated the house to allow the contractors to do the work. The judge applied the maxim res ipsa loquitur in the absence of definitive proof as to the cause of the fire, since on the available evidence it was more likely than not that some negligent act or omission of the contractors had caused the fire.

Practice And Procedure

Global claim

Petromec Inc v Petroleo Brasileiro SA [2008] 115 Con LR 11 Commercial Court and CA

In a claim for additional costs following a change in specification for an oil rig, the trial judge held that the claimant would need to identify work and cost attributable to the work required to effect the change. The Court of Appeal upheld this finding; it would not be fair to Petrobras, if Petromec was not required to give adequate particulars of its claim. Global claims case law was cited, although not the John Doyle case. May LJ provides guidance on what will be necessary at the case management stage.

See Aldi Stores v WSP Group under Keating Chambers Reported Cases on criteria for striking out where difficulties had not been raised with court in settling main action in complex multi-party proceedings.

See Scobie v Fairview Land under Keating Chambers Reported Cases on criteria for allowing amendments to particulars of claim.

Pre-action Protocol

Orange Personal Communications Services Ltd v Hoare Lea [2008] All ER (D) 169 TCC

In deciding whether proceedings should be stayed for the TCC Pre-action Protocol process, especially where there are Part 20 proceedings, the following considerations are relevant: (i) when it was known that the party was going to be joined (ii) what information that party had been given and when (iii) how large a part that party would play (iv) what stay could be accommodated without jeopardising the overall timetable (v) any requirement of justice regarding delay of whole timetable and trial date (vi) whether costs order could compensate (vii) alternatives to a stay (viii) utility of stay/protocol process. The court considered authorities on its case management powers.

Pre-action Protocol

Cundall Johnston and Partners LLP v Whipps Cross University Hospital NHS Trust [2008] 115 Con LR 125 and [2008] TCLR1 TCC

Already reported in BLR; a dispute arose between the claimant engineering firm and the defendant client regarding unpaid professional fees. The defendant applied to stay proceedings as non-compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol for Construction and Engineering Disputes. The claimant's contention was that the Protocol did not govern simple debt recovery, but the court held that this war was an 'engineering dispute' under para 1.1 of the Protocol and thus proceedings would be stayed for compliance with the Protocol to take place.

Civil Procedure

Civil Procedure Update 2007 by Kim Franklin, Crown Office Chambers Construction Law Journal [2008] Vol. 24 No. 1 p. 22

The article is based on the author's presentation to the TECBAR Annual CPD Seminar and covers three main areas: experts' reports, protocols and judicial bias. The coverage of experts' reports concerns their privileged status, specifically that of draft reports, previous experts' reports and joint statements for mediation. The protocols coverage includes the new Practice Direction (July 2006), costs of compliance with the protocol and parties joined late. The judicial bias questions relate chiefly to arguments where advocates and tribunal members are from the same Chambers. There is guidance on objection and waiver of right to object by clients.

Settlement of action

Britestone Pte Ltd v Smith & Associates Far East Ltd [2008] BLM Vol. 25 No. 2 p.11 Singapore Court of Appeal

The Singapore CA held that recovery of damages for breach of contract was possible where an action had been settled, provided the settlement was reasonable. The CA held that there must be sufficient detail to show how the settlement was reached and that the 'reasonable businessman' test should be applied. The claimant must first establish a prima facie case that the settlement was reasonable and the defendant then has the burden of rebutting the prima facie case. The judgment lists twelve factors to be considered by the court in assessing whether the decision was reasonable.

See Maurice v Leriche under Keating Chambers Reported Cases on judge's discretion to award interest.

Commercial Litigation Journal January/February 2008

contains the following articles:

Procedure: a new approach

(on Commercial Court procedural reform)

by Julian Copeman and Mike Pilgrem, Herbert Smith

House of Lords supports parties' choice of arbitration (on Fiona Trust)

by Richard Black and Jane Ballantyne, Barlow Lyde & Gilbert

White-collar crime: the US is changing the corporate investigative landscape

by Tom Epps, Russell Jones & Walker

Costs: insurance development

by James Delaney, Judge

Breach of contract: the future of Wrotham Park damages

by Anthony de Garr Robinson QC, One Essex Court

Standard terms: be careful what you wish for ...

by Tim Gleeson and Christian Smith, Coffin Mew

Keating Chambers Reported Cases

Pierce Design International Ltd v Johnson [2008] 115 Con LR 110 TCC

Already reported in BLR, this is the first application of the House of Lords decision in Melville Dundas v George Wimpey to the effect that clause of the JCT Contract (1998 edition) which allowed an employer not to pay a sum without a withholding notice, did not contravene the HGCR Act s.111. The claimant was successful in its application for summary judgment.

Lucy Garrett Richard Coplin

RC Pillar & Son v The Camber (Portsmouth) Ltd [2008] 115 Con LR 102 TCC

The claimant contractor succeeded in its argument that it had made a binding agreement with the defendant client which gave the adjudicator ad hoc jurisdiction to decide both the claimant's claims and the defendant's cross-claims without considering procedural defences. The defendant was held to have waived its jurisdiction objections.

Adrian Williamson QC

Steria Ltd v Sigma Wireless Communications Ltd [2008] CILL 2544 TCC

The CILL report and commentary concentrates on the time bar/condition precedent aspects of the case, which relates to the provision for a new computerised system for the fire and ambulance services in the Republic of Ireland. However, the case also contains important discussion of concurrent delay, apparently endorsing the approach in Malmaison (Finola O'Farrell QC) and in Keating 8th edition and the prevention principle analysis of Jackson J in Multiplex Constructions v Honeywell Control Systems (No.2) (David Thomas QC and Marc Rowlands).

Simon Hargreaves

Aldi Stores Ltd v WSP Group plc [2008] BLR 1 and [2008] 115 Con LR 49 CA

Already reported in BLM, the appellant had secured a judgment against its design and build contractor. It did not pursue claims against the respondent professionals who had given it warranties in respect of their work on the development. Another owner on the site pursued the respondents and others and those claims were settled at the start of the trial. The appellant was unable to enforce against the contractor or its insurers and so now brought claims against the respondents. The action was struck out as an abuse of process by Mr. Justice Jackson but was then reinstated on appeal. In doing so, the Court of Appeal gave guidance as to the practice to be followed in similar situations in future.

David Thomas QC

Ringway Infrastructure Services Ltd v Vauxhall Motors Ltd [2008] TCLR 2 and [2008] 115 Con LR 149 TCC

Already reported in CILL, this decision concerned chiefly claimability of interest. The cause of action for these purposes would be the breach of the obligation to comply with the adjudicator's decision. Interest could only be claimed under s.35A of the Supreme Court Act in enforcement proceedings from the date that Vauxhall failed to honour the adjudicator's decision.

Abdul Jinadu

Tyco Fire & Integrated Solutions (UK) Ltd v Rolls Royce Motor Cars [2008] Construction Law Journal Vol. 24 No. 1 p.60 and BLM Vol. 25 No. 2 TCC

Already reported in BLR, under a design and build contract, the claimant contractor agreed to provide a fire protection system at the premises of the defendant client. The contract required the client to take out joint names insurance, which was not done, in respect of specified perils. When water from the mains flooded the client's premises, the client obtained damages in adjudication. The court, applying CRS v Taylor Young, held that the parties had provided contractually for dealing with damage caused by specified perils; the joint names insurance was the fund to which both parties should have been able to look.

Krista Lee

Maurice v Leriche [2008] All ER (D) 264 Privy Council

This appeal from St. Lucia concerned concurrent judgments on fact of two lower courts and, especially, whether the judge was entitled to award interest from the date of judgment. The Privy Council set out the basic rule that a trial judge had general discretion to award interest, even where it was not pleaded, provided that did not breach procedural requirements. Building contracts, as in this case, were seen as a 'classic' case for the presumption that interest should be addressed and ordinarily awarded unless there was some adequate reason to the contrary.

Jonathan Selby

Scobie v Fairview Land Ltd [2008] EWHC 147 Lawtel TCC

The court held that amendments to particulars of claim ought in general to be allowed unless there was prejudice to the other party which could not be compensated by a costs order or harm to the administration of justice. Scobie was thus allowed the amendments applied for. Fairview's objection that an expert's quantum report should be excluded as too late and incomprehensible was rejected; clarification could be obtained from the expert if needed. Fairview did manage to get certain items in the Scott Schedule struck out.

Ian Pennicott QC

Reinwood Ltd v L. Brown & Sons Ltd [2008] All ER (D) 283 HL

The Court of Appeal's decision was affirmed by the House of Lords. The employer's right to deduct LADs was not lost by the cancellation of the certificate of non-completion under Clause 24 (of JCT 98), through an extension of time. There were two pre-conditions, which were satisfied, namely the architect's issue of the Clause 24 certificate and the employer's written notice of its intention to deduct LADs.

John Marrin QC Stephen Furst QC

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

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

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
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
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions