We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 17

Ignore notice requirements at your peril

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • April 15 2009

Most construction and engineering contracts require the contractor to give notice to the employer of events or circumstances when they happen as the first step in the process of claiming an extension of time andor additional cost

Concurrent delay an update

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • July 29 2011

Delay is, of course, a common problem on construction projects worldwide

Direct or indirect loss?

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • September 30 2011

Construction contracts often contain a provision excluding liability for indirect and consequential loss, but the distinction between direct loss and indirectconsequential loss can be a confusing one

Recovering losses incurred in settlement of a third party claim

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • August 30 2011

Under the usual principles of causation, in order to be successful in its claim before a court or tribunal, the claimant has to demonstrate that there has been a breach of contract and that that breach caused the claimant loss andor damage, and has to prove the quantification of that loss

When will a wrongful suspension amount to a repudiatory breach of contract?

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • April 23 2010

In the recent case of Mayhaven v DAB, the English High Court had to consider whether a contractor's wrongful suspension of its works would, as a matter of principle, amount to a repudiatory breach of contract entitling the employer to terminate the contract and sue for damages

Liquidated damages clauses unenforceable as penalties

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • February 24 2010

In our last newsletter we discussed the basic principles of liquidated damages clauses

Contractual notices: defeating the prevention principle

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • September 15 2009

In last month's Construction Disputes Avoidance Newsletter we considered the operation of the prevention principle, what it means for time to be 'at large' under a construction contract, and how a time at large situation can be avoided by a properly drafted extension of time clause

Excluding liability for consequential loss and loss of profits

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • May 15 2009

In construction and engineering projects, the financial consequences of a breach of contract may be considerable in the worst case an employer may suffer extensive losses, including loss of profits, loss of business and loss of revenue

Is the credit crunch an event of force majeure or frustration?

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • November 30 2009

We have received a number of enquiries in recent months about the extent to which contractors can argue that a construction contract should be renegotiated (or even terminated) to take into account the increased cost, or reduced availability, of finance for major projects as a result of the global financial crisis

A significant new decision: Walter Lilly v Mackay July 2012

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • August 31 2012

In a major judgment published on 11 July 2012, Walter Lilly v. Mackay, Mr Justice Akenhead, the judge in charge of the Technology and Construction Court in London ("TCC") has given guidance on a number of important issues in construction law