The Baby is Back in the Bath: Liquidated Damages in the UK Supreme Court
In March 2019, in the English Court of Appeal, Sir
‘Subject to Contract’ in English Law
This article examines the 'subject to contract' label in English law, its use to avoid premature binding agreements, and its interpretation in two recent court cases, highlighting that its effect depends on the specific circumstances.
Tribunal Secretaries: Tasks, Transparency and Regulation
The debate surrounding the use of tribunal secretaries in international
Damages at Large: Triple Point, FIDIC and the TCC
Triple Point was a case heard in the English Court of
Pay attention Bond!
The recent English case Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation Europe Limited v Euler Hermes Europe SA (NV) [2019] EWHC 2250 (Comm) highlights that where an on demand bond is assigned and a demand then made under that bond, the beneficiary will need to be sure not only that the demand is compliant with the terms of the bond but also that the assignment was effective in the first place.
No EOT for Concurrent Delay, if so Agreed
Contract clauses that deny a contractor entitlement to an extension of time for concurrent delays caused by both employer and contractor are valid in principle. In North Midland Building Ltd -V- Cyden Homes Ltd [1] the Court of Appeal of England and Wales has ruled that such clauses do not offend the common law prevention principle. Nor do they give rise to an implied term to prohibit the imposition of delay damages that may result.
1999 Suite: Commentary on Clause 17 – Risk and Responsibility
Clause 17 covers risk and responsibility, indemnities, liability limitations, and intellectual property rights. The Contractor bears risk during execution and defect remedy periods, with risk transferring to the Employer upon issuing the Taking-Over Certificate. Risk allocation depends on governing law.
1999 Suite: Commentary on Clause 08 – Commencement, Delays, and Suspension
Clause 8 covers the start of works, time for completion, delays, extensions, and suspension of works. It includes provisions for commencement, completion, progress, delay damages, and suspension, with updates from the 4th Edition Red Book.
Fitness for Purpose Højgaard and FIDIC’s Yellow Books
MT Højgaard is an important English case, considering fitness for purpose obligations in design-and-build contracts. This article examines the Supreme Court’s analysis of a fitness for purpose obligation in Højgaard and whether it would be applied to FIDIC’s Yellow Book contracts.
All Damage Is In A Sense Consequential – So What In Law Are Consequential Losses?
English courts have historically held 'consequential loss' to be synonymous with 'indirect loss'. However, a recent case questions this position. It is also worth nothing that courts in different countries interpret 'consequential loss' differently from English courts.
Mistake In English Law: Two Recent Cases
English law recognises different types of mistake and permits various equitable remedies in case of mistake, as illustrated by the two English court decisions examined in this article.
Penalty Clauses Down Under
Whilst it is widely understood that the law on liquidated damages differs considerably between common law and civil law jurisdictions, there are also differences within common law jurisdictions which are sometimes overlooked. This article summarises the recent developments to the law on penalties in England and Wales, as reported by Steve Mangan in May 2016[1], and compares them with the developments to the law on penalties in Australia.
Unjust Enrichment and Construction Contracts – A Cinderella Story?
Two decades ago, unjust enrichment was described as “the Cinderella of law, barely 10 years old but growing up rapidly. Until recently unrecognised and overshadowed by the ugly sisters, Contract and Tort, Cinderella’s day has arrived.” In England a claim for unjust enrichment was initially referred to as a claim in ‘quasi contract’. This language has now been abandoned and unjust enrichment has a strong foothold in the landscape of commercial law and its role and limits are becoming more clearly defined. Despite this, it is only infrequently pleaded in construction cases and when argued it is often set out in broad terms where the facts do not support such a claim. However, this is cause of action that should not be overlooked by a contractor or employer – especially if they have claims that fall outside the four corners of their construction contract.
Murphy’s Law
Earlier this year, the English High Court considered a heavily amended FIDIC Yellow Book 1999. Whilst the case is specific to the particular contractual amendments it is worth review. The case is J Murphy & Sons Ltd v Beckton Energy Ltd. It proceeded in court and on an expedited basis as a matter of some urgency because a bond was about to be called for non-payment of delay damages. The Contractor claimed the call would affect his commercial reputation, standing and creditworthiness, and may well need to be disclosed in future tenders. He had not paid the delay damages because there had been no agreement or determination of the entitlement to such by the Engineer under Sub-Clauses 2.5 and 3.5.
Aspect v Higgins: The Final Reckoning
The English Supreme Court has ruled that losers in adjudications have six years to challenge an adjudicator’s decision from the payment date, while winners' rights to seek improvement end with the original claim's limitation period. This article considers the implications.
Indemnity Costs – you’ll be lucky! Interim Payment of Costs – definitely maybe
Even if a claimant has achieved complete success in litigation, it remains exceptionally difficult to recover legal costs on an indemnity basis, as this case demonstrates. Costs will most likely be recovered on the standard basis – at least in the absence of bad conduct during the litigation itself. This case also indicates that the court will generally limit an interim payment of costs to two-thirds of an approved costs budget.
Tunnel Vision: The English High Court Considers the FIDIC Yellow Book
The English Court considers termination and notice provisions under the FIDIC Yellow Book 1999. How are clause 15.1 notices to correct limited? Do termination events have to be repudiations? Is it fatal to serve notice of termination on the ’wrong’ address? When does the 28-day period under clause 20.1 start to run? Mr Justice Akenhead offers guidance to the industry.