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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 36

Fitness for purpose obligations take precedence over specification
  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • June 30 2014

In the recent case in the English High Court of MT Hojgaard v E. ON1, it was held that a fitness for purpose obligation in a construction contract


FIDIC dispute adjudication boards: mandatory or optional?
  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • Global
  • November 28 2014

Two recent cases have provided welcome guidance on the issue of whether or not the FIDIC forms of construction contracts provide that it is mandatory


How to terminate contracts effectively
  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • December 19 2013

On 10th October 2013 the Technology & Construction Court, a division of the English High Court, decided the case of SABIC v PLL and SCL. The case


建設ニュースレター 第 78 号
  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • China
  • August 31 2015

仲裁開始の前提条件に関する請負者側の不履行が発注者の 行為に起因している場合発注者はこれに依拠することができ ませんイングランドウェールズ高等法院が 2014 年 12 月


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


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


AJU v AJT 2011 SGCA 41
  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • Singapore
  • October 31 2011

The Singapore Court of Appeal has reaffirmed that the public policy ground for challenging an arbitral award will be interpreted very narrowly by the Singapore courts, overturning a previous High Court decision


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


Recovering wasted management costs
  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • February 29 2012

Significant management costs can be incurred when one party is required to reorganize internal resources or divert staff from their usual activities in order to investigate, manage and mitigate the effects of the other party's breach of contract