Watson Farley & Williams’ Post

💡 Q: When is a construction contract NOT a construction contract? A: read this great insight by my Forsters LLP #construction #disputes colleague Dan Cudlipp on a recent Supreme Court decision giving some welcome clarity

On 9 July 2024, the UK Supreme Court delivered judgment in a case which provides useful guidance as to whether a collateral warranty should be regarded as a “construction contract” for the purposes of adjudication. Clare Cashin, of our projects and construction group discusses a new view on Collateral Warranties. To read the full article click here: https://lnkd.in/e7EQYVke   #Construction #Adjudication #CollateralWarranties

Hot off the press from the Supreme Court: Most collateral warranties now won’t qualify as a “construction contract” under the Construction Act and statutory adjudication won’t apply to their disputes. To get round this going forwards, parties with an appetite for adjudication will need to include voluntary adjudication provisions in their collateral warranties at contracting stage. Sensible reasoning and result as more fully outlined by Anneliese Day KC #construction #adjudication #spencerwest

In a long-awaited decision, the Supreme Court has clarified when a collateral warranty can be a 'construction contract' under the Construction Act 1996. We've deconstructed the court's ruling in our latest article, where we look at the facts of the case and the key takeaways. Find out more: https://loom.ly/cuy8x9w

Explore the latest legal developments in Ontario's construction industry.🛠️ Bevin Shores, partner at Gowling WLG, reveals insights into Ontario's construction legal landscape. Discover how procedural fairness is revolutionizing interim adjudication review. Read it here: https://lnkd.in/gBZY7WAq #ConstructionLaw #LegalInsights #GowlingWLG #OntarioCourt #AdjudicationFairness 

See our latest Casewatch: “NSW Supreme Court Lays Out Principles of Defect Compensation” This case demonstrates the basics of the courts approach to compensation for defects and is useful as a reminder to contractors and builders to remain aware of trial awards, as well as the potential expenses. Check out our latest Casewatch on the matter of 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘖𝘸𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘚𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘢 𝘗𝘭𝘢𝘯 98726 𝘷 𝘌𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘙𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘺 𝘋𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘗𝘵𝘺 𝘓𝘵𝘥 (𝘕𝘰 3) [2024] 𝘕𝘚𝘞𝘚𝘊 673 𝑁𝑆𝑊𝐶𝐴 85’ at the following link: https://lnkd.in/g73erkn4 #doylesconstructionlawyers #doyles #constructionlawyers #constructioncontractlaw #construction #contractors #Construction #Casewatch #Law #casewatch #lawyers #australianconstruction #constructionmatters #legal #constructionlaw #constructioncase #constructioncontracts #constructionlawyer #contracts #contract #constructionlaw #australiaconstructionlaw #legaladvice #constructionproject

The CCDC-2 form of contract does not restrict parties from employing a wide array of mechanisms to address and resolve claims. For example, beyond the two-year basic limitation period under Ontario’s Limitations Act, the Act also allows parties to have a "business agreement" that may vary limitation periods in certain circumstances. In Leveque vs. the MTO, parties are reminded that courts may enforce contractual limitation clauses if they are unambiguous, clear in language and scope, and exclude the operation of other limitation periods. Edward Lynde Q. Arb. Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP #constructionlaw #constructionlawyer #disputeresolution #contractlaw #limitationperiods https://bit.ly/3NbZGfP

🚨 Security of Payment Alert 🚨 A win for common sense, with the Supreme Court confirming that a lawyer's letter of demand is not a payment claim under the SOP Act. Emily Barnett and I explain more. Head to our website to subscribe to our newsletter, or follow the Moray & Agnew page on LinkedIn (and turn on notifications) to be the first to receive our industry based legal updates.

Simple, easy to understand advice for the construction sector in nipping disputes in the bud. Great article from Chris Kirby-Turner Elizabeth Jones.

The court in a recent California Appellate Case enforced a mechanics lien without the claimant serving notice of the lien to the construction lender. In Ram Concrete Construction v. Montecito Realty Group, the court closely examined the mechanics lien statutory notice requirements. Ram filed a mechanics lien for unpaid work, but Montecito challenged it, arguing that the notice was improperly served and therefore invalid because Ram had failed to serve the construction lender with a preliminary notice of mechanic’s lien as required by Civil Code section 8204, subdivision (a). However, despite Ram's failure to serve a preliminary notice on the construction lender, the court sustained the trial court's ruling that this failure was not fatal to Ram's cause of action for foreclosure on mechanic’s lien because there was no prejudice to the construction lender, and therefore allowed Ram to foreclose. The court's decision underscores the critical importance of complying with mechanics lien statutory notice requirements, but also moves away from the strict compliance that Civil Code section 8204 has traditionally required. This case serves as a crucial reminder for all contractors to meticulously follow statutory procedures to protect their interests. However, it is also a win for contractors who may make mistakes during service of the lien or elsewhere - they may still be able to foreclose notwithstanding mistakes in service of notice. . . . #TheParkmanLawFirm #freeconsultation #consultation #construction #constructionlaw #constructionlitigation #business #businesslaw #wageandhour #humanresources #hr #law #legal #litigation #transactional #lawyer #attorney #help #aid #lawfirm #sandiego #scrippsranch #california #ca #LegalInsights #MechanicsLien #CourtCases #CACourt #ConstructionInsights