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

A cold wind blows: the impact of a more literal approach to contractual interpretation on construction contracts
  • Fenwick Elliott Solicitors
  • United Kingdom
  • July 28 2017

The key to resolving disputes is all too often working out what a particular provision or provisions actually means. Parties may have wildly different


NEC 3 and Target Cost Contracts: Defined Costs, Disallowed Costs and Defects
  • Fenwick Elliott Solicitors
  • United Kingdom
  • August 23 2016

In this edition of Insight, we examine the role of Defined Costs and Disallowed Costs in the NEC3 Target Cost Contracts and look at the confusion


Letters of Intent: Avoiding those Bear Traps
  • Fenwick Elliott Solicitors
  • United Kingdom
  • March 30 2017

The use of letters of intent can be fraught with difficulty. In this Insight we review the key case law on letters of intent of the past few years and


Enterprise Managed Services Ltd v Tony McFadden Utilities Ltd 2009 EWHC 3222 (TCC), Mr Justice Coulson
  • Fenwick Elliott Solicitors
  • United Kingdom
  • February 28 2010

On 5 May 1998 Thames Water Utilities Ltd engaged Thames Water Services Ltd, trading as Subterra, to carry out the repair and maintenance of mains, service pipes, and other fittings (the "Main Contract"


Privilege in the context of construction claims: A refresher and warnings
  • Fenwick Elliott Solicitors
  • United Kingdom
  • June 6 2017

In this month’s Insight we review some of the basics in respect of privilege so far as it pertains to construction claims including adjudications. As


Disrupted? Prove it!
  • Fenwick Elliott Solicitors
  • United Kingdom
  • May 3 2017

Disruption (too often confused or intermingled with a delay claim) is notoriously difficult to establish. It can be crystal clear to everyone on the


JPA Design & Build Ltd v Sentosa (UK) Ltd; and Sentosa (UK) Ltd v JPA Design & Build Ltd
  • Fenwick Elliott Solicitors
  • United Kingdom
  • November 6 2009

On 19 September 2007 Sentosa (UK) Limited ("Sentosa") engaged JPA Design & Build Limited ("JPA") to design and construct a new medical centre


Adjudication Costs: The law of diminishing returns?
  • Fenwick Elliott Solicitors
  • European Union, United Kingdom
  • January 17 2017

For a dispute resolution method designed to deal “expeditiously and relatively inexpensively with disputes” adjudication can, unfortunately, be


Terminating for failure to proceed regularly and diligently - what could go wrong?
  • Fenwick Elliott Solicitors
  • United Kingdom
  • September 26 2016

Does the Employer have the right to terminate the Contractor’s employment for failure to proceed regularly and diligently under a JCT standard form


McLennan Architects Ltd v (1) Jeremy Jones; and (2) Helen Roberts 2014 EWHC 2604 (TCC), Mr Justice Akenhead
  • Fenwick Elliott Solicitors
  • United Kingdom
  • October 6 2014

McLennan Architects ("the Claimant") claimed for payment in relation to architectural and project administration services as well as for