Since The Board of Governors of the Hospitals for Sick Children and Another v McLaughlin & Harvey plc and others – ("the Great Ormond Street case") [1987] 19 Con LR 25) - it has become something of a construction lawyer's "rule of thumb" that if a claimant wants to recover the cost of rectification it is more likely to do so if remedial works have been carried out upon a professional consultant's advice.

What will this year hold for those working on projects in and with China? We look ahead at the key areas in construction, investment and arbitration

There is no doubt that the UAE has been steadily establishing itself as a global arbitration centre by developing the Dubai International Arbitration Centre ("DIAC") , Dubai International Financial Centre–London Court of International Arbitration ("DIFC–LCIA") and the Abu Dhabi Commercial Conciliation and Arbitration Centre amongst others.

Developers often set up "special purpose vehicles" ("SPVs") to carry out developments which are subsequently wound up following completion.

There have been a number of cases in which individuals have sought to bring proceedings in tort in England, against an English parent company and its foreign subsidiary, in respect of certain events occurring in the foreign country, ...

In an article that first appeared in Financier Worldwide (Corporate Disputes, July-September 2021)...

Recent Russian Supreme Court rulings have created significant obstacles for enforcing international arbitration awards against Russian parties, particularly when arbitrators originate from politically "unfriendly" jurisdictions. English courts continue to assert jurisdiction and enforce arbitral orders, but the practical challenge of ultimate enforcement in Russian courts persists. Understanding these jurisdictional complexities and implementing strategic safeguards has become essential for parties engaged

When I drafted my article for the previous edition of IQ, which can be accessed here, I did not have a Part 2 in mind.

We discussed this case in Dispatch, Issue 290. Providence had brought a Part 8 claim seeking a declaration against Hexagon as to the proper construction of clause 8.9 of the 2016 JCT Design and Build Contract between the parties.

In our original article from February of this year headed "A Pragmatic Approach To The Pre Action Protocol", we highlighted Mr Justice Akenhead's comments in the case of Orange Personal Communications Services Ltd v Hoare Lea [2008] EWHC 223, where he had to consider the approach to take when faced with an application to stay proceedings in order for the Pre Action Protocol for Construction & Engineering Disputes ("the Protocol") to be followed. As we

We were all waiting for 2016: the year the UK government implemented and required BIM Level 2 on all of its projects.

I recently attended the latest Dispute Resolution Board Foundation ("DRBF") Regional Conference in Doha, Qatar.1 The theme of the conference was "Effective Use of Dispute Boards for Dispute Avoidance and Resolution on Major Projects".

>In the case of Brit Inns Ltd & Anr v BDW Trading Ltd (No.2), [2012] EWHC 2489 (TCC), Mr Justice Coulson had to consider an exaggerated claim in relation to which the defendant failed to adequately protect its position on costs with an effective Part 36 offer.

The Drafting Committee of the LCIA circulated a "final draft" of new Arbitration Rules (New LCIA Rules) for consideration by the LCIA at its Tylney Hall symposium on 9 May 2014.

The general rule for a claim in negligence (tort) is that proceedings must be commenced within six years from the date when the damage first occurred. S14A of the Limitation Act 1980 ("the Act") serves to accommodate latent defects by extending this period by three years from the date of knowledge of the claim, with a 15-year long-stop date.

Termination at will or termination at the employer’s convenience clauses have become very common over the past 20 years.

Contracting authorities are under a duty to comply with the public procurement rules (where applicable). If they do not comply, Contractors have two avenues of redress. Firstly, they may bring actions in the UK courts for damages and/or for the award decision to be set aside.

Where an adjudicator or an umpire appointed to carry out an expert determination fails to provide adequate reasoning for their decision is there anything that can be done? This was something Mr Justice Cresswell had to consider in the recent case of Halifax Life Limited v The Equitable Life Assurance Society [2007] EWHC 503.

This was the question before Judge Mackie QC in the case of C A Blackwell (Contracts) Ltd v Gerling Allegemeine Verischerungs – AG [2007] EWHC 94 when he had to consider whether losses caused by bad weather were covered by an all risks insurance policy.

In his article, Letters of Intent: Principles and Pitfalls*, my colleague Matthew Needham-Laing concluded that in an ideal world, there would be no letters of intent. One of the reasons for this was demonstrated by the recent case of ERDC Group Limited v Brunel University where a dispute arose as to the basis upon which the contractor should be paid for works carried out under a letter of intent.