• Telephone: +44 (0)151 647 8862

   

 

Image

RSS-2.0
  • “SMASH AND GRAB” ADJUDICATIONS: CONFUSION AS TO CASH-FLOW WITHIN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY NOW CLARIFIED?

    “Smash and grab” has become an increasingly utilised phrase in the construction industry. The road to “smash and grab” adjudications began in 2014 with the case of ISG v Seevic in which, by failing to serve a valid and effective payment and/or pay less notice in response to an interim application for payment, the employer was deemed to have agreed the amount stated in that interim application for payment. At the time, the court’s position was that the true value of the interim application had "been determined" - meaning that the employer was not able to adjudicate on the true value of the works. That was until the 2017 case of ICI v Merit Merrell when it was suggested by the court that ISG v Seevic may not be decided in the same way. In his decision in Grove v S&T published only last week, The Hon Mr Justice Coulson has taken the step to depart from the decisions of his fellow colleagues in an attempt to clarify the alleged confusion as to cash-flow within the construction industry.

    Read more...
    05/03
  • The Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Amendment) Regulations 2018

    We often hear people talk about cash flow being the “life blood” of the construction industry. Yet, despite the fact that we know that payment is key to the success of businesses to the extent that it has potential to affect the smooth running of construction projects, the problem concerning the late payment of amounts certified as due or the non-payment of amounts applied for continues. The Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 (the “Late Payment Act”) was implemented so as to offer those to which it applies an incentive to encourage payments to be made promptly. The incentive is in the form of a consequence for failure to make payments on time.

    Read more...
    05/03
  • Interim Payment Application: Valid Despite Being Contractually Deficient [January 2017]

    The recent decision in Kersfield Developments (Bridge Road) Ltd and Bray and Slaughter Ltd [2017] EWHC 15 (TCC) provides useful guidance on the effect of bespoke contract terms on the validity of interim payment applications.

    Read more...
    30/01
  • Expert witness: a cautionary tale [18 December 2015]

    The recent case of Van Oord UK Limited and SICIM Roadbridge Limited v Allseas UK Limited [2015] EWHC 3074 (TCC) provides helpful guidance in relation to the role of an expert witness and, in particular, it highlights the importance of the legal team’s instructions and supervision of an expert witness and the need for impartiality and independent investigation on the part of the expert.

    Read more...
    18/12
  • Adjudication - Be sure before you smash and grab [December 2015]

    The recent case of Henia Investments Inc (“Henia”) v Beck Interiors Limited (“Beck”) [2015] EWHC 2433 (TCC) raises “a number of important interpretation issues concerning the payment provisions of the JCT Standard Building Contract without Quantities 2011” and the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (as amended) (the “1996 Act”).

    Read more...
    10/12
Archive