Construction law quarterly

Le résumé fourni par la source

Welcome to the second edition of Construction Law Quarterly for 2025.In this edition, we present a wide range of papers that delve into both current issues and the wider complexities encountered in the field of construction law.This is a bumper edition as we head into the summer months in the northern hemisphere.Our first paper covers highlights the growing importance of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) considerations in the legal aspects of the construction industry.It identifies critical gaps, such as inconsistent ESG standards and training shortages, that hinder the adoption of ESG practices.The research reveals a divide in ESG priorities between legal and construction professionals, with governance being a primary focus for lawyers and environmental concerns for construction practitioners.The report emphasises the need for standardisation, training, and collaboration.Our second paper is a case summary covering Lidl Great Britain Limited v Closed Circuit Cooling Limited (3CL) 1 , and the multiple adjudications occurred between the parties.Lidl was initially ordered to pay a sum in a "smash and grab" adjudication.Subsequent adjudications involved claims for rectifying defects and an extension of time.3CL argued that these adjudications lacked jurisdiction as the initial sum was unpaid.The court ruled that adjudications unrelated to the unpaid sum could proceed.However, claims overlapping with issues that could have been addressed in a payless notice were restricted.The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to notice requirements and clarified the scope of the Grove principle.Our third paper is another case summary which explores the case of Tata Consultancy Services Ltd v Disclosure and Barring Service 2 , where the court examined whether certain clauses in a contract constituted conditions precedent for claiming compensation for delays.Mr. Justice Constable outlined key factors to determine if a clause is a condition precedent, emphasising clear intention and specific language.The court found that compliance with specific clauses was necessary for entitlement to compensation for delays.Our fourth paper is a fascinating insight into a high profile case relating to compliance with procurement processes.The court emphasised the importance of clear contractual terms and rational decision making.Our fifth and final article relates to the application of the Defective Premises Act 1972 3 and the interface with the Building Safety Act 2022 4 .The court found that disputes "under the contract" include statutory claims like those under the DPA.This ruling clarifies that previously time-barred claims can now be pursued through adjudication, providing a significant avenue for addressing historic fire and building safety defects.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.