The long awaited publication of the National Energy System Operator’s (NESO) connections reform timetable has arrived. It is clear we are now in the ‘eye of the storm’ for all developers who have projects with existing signed connection agreements in place with NESO or (where affected by the reforms) with their Distribution Network Operator (DNO).
In Placefirst Construction Ltd v CAR Construction (North East) Ltd, the Technology and Construction Court (“TCC”) declined to enforce an adjudicator’s decision that a contractor had failed to issue a valid payment notice or pay less notice under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996.
In Grain Communications Limited v Shepherd Groundworks Ltd the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) decided that an employer’s decision to postpone works without providing a new commencement date was a valid exercise of its contractual right to instruct a variation and was not a breach of contract that entitled the contractor to damages.
In Darcliffe Homes Ltd v Glanville Consultants and another, the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) held that there was an insufficient link between negligent advice in a consultant’s ground condition report and a property developer’s loss.
The Inner House (appeal division) of the Scottish Court of Session determined in FES Limited v HFD Construction Group Ltd that notice provisions under a construction contract were conditions precedent to a contractor’s entitlement to reimbursement for loss and expense.
In 2020, FES Limited (FES) and HFD Construction Group Ltd (HFD) contracted to fit out an office building on Bothwell Street in Glasgow.
In ATG Services (Scotland) Ltd v Ogilvie Construction Ltd [2024] CSOH 94, the Court of Session enforced the adjudicator’s decision, finding there had been no breach of natural justice as the adjudicator had not gone off on a frolic of his own.
In two recent cases, the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) has clarified how parties can disapply the statutory right to interest on late payments under the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 (“1998 Act”).
In the first case, the court held that applying interest to “undisputed” debts – but not to “disputed” debts – was sufficient to oust the 1998 Act. In the second case, the court held that an interest rate of 2% above the Bank of England base rate was insufficient to oust the 1998 Act.
In Beck Interiors Ltd v Eros Ltd, the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) clarified that exceptional circumstances are required for an injunction to prevent an adjudication from proceeding.
In 2020, Eros Ltd (Eros) contracted Beck Interiors Ltd (Beck) as design and build fit-out contractor in the development of The Residence, Mandarin Oriental, in Hanover Square, London.
In Providence Building Services Ltd v Hexagon Housing Association Ltd, it was held that a contractor could terminate its employment under an amended Joint Contracts Tribunal (JCT) Design and Build Contract due to the employer making a second late payment, thereby repeating a “specified default”, even though the first late payment did not give rise to a right to terminate.