Date Issue   Judgment 13.12.06 Whether statutory timescales will be strictly applied to the adjudication process.   Hart Investments v Fidler & Anor, TCC, 3 November 2006. 06.12.06 Examining clauses in contracts of sale that provide for retention of title until full payment is made.   Various. 29.11.06 Contractor’s failure to prepare adequate programmes.   Balfour Beatty Construction Limited v The Mayor and Burgess of the London Borough of Lambeth (2002). 22.11.06 The use of without prejudice protection to prevent the use of mediation documents in subsequent litigation.   Aird v Prime Meridian Limited, 19 September 2006, TCC. 15.11.06 Enforcement of adjudicator’s decisions.   Gray & Sons Builders (Bedford) v Essential Box Company, TCC, 11 October 2006. 08.11.06 The requirement to record agreements in writing for the purposes of the Construction Act.   Westdawn Refurbishments Ltd v Roselodge Ltd, TCC 25 April 2006. 01.11.06 The common law defence of abatement.   Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd, TCC 5 June 2006. 25.10.06 The principal grounds upon which a petition presented to the High Court for winding up under section 124(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 may be avoided.   Medlock Products Limited v SCC Construction Limited, Bristol High Court, 13 July 2006, Seawind Tankers Corporation v Bayoil SA (1998), CA. 18.10.06 The wording of settlement agreements.   Carlo Mantegazza & Anor v Neil Holland Architects & Anor, TCC, 11 May 2006. 11.10.06 When interest is payable upon a claim.   Various. 04.10.06 Whether a referring party in adjudication can withdraw its claim bringing the adjudication to an end.   Midland Expressway Ltd v Carillion Construction Ltd & Others, TCC 13 June 2006. 27.09.06 The battle of the forms, exclusion clauses, and guidance to experts.   Balmoral Group Ltd v Borealis Group Ltd and (1) Borealis [UK] Ltd (2) Borealis AS (3) Borealis A/S. 20.09.06 Interpreting the intent of parties to an agreement.   Skanska Rashleigh Weatherfoil v Somerfield Stores Ltd, 28 April 2006 (TCC). 13.09.06 Whether it was negligent to allow the issue of a letter of intent.   Cunningham and Others v Collett and Farmer, TCC 13 July 2006. 06.09.06 Identifying the various types of dispute board and the advantages which may be brought.   General discussion of dispute boards. 30.08.06 Whether a contractor is entitled to an extension of time for an event that uses up terminal float in an early completion programme - JCT SBC05 and NEC3 contrasted.   The Royal Brompton Hospital NHS Trust v Frederick Alexander Hammond and Others (No 11) [2002]. 23.08.06 Examining the rules for the interpretation of oral contracts.   Brian Royle Maggs v Guy Marsh & Others, CA 7 July 2006. 16.08.06 Can a party who is assigned rights under a contract recover more from the contract-breaker than the assignor could have done had there been no assignment.   Larkstore Ltd v Technotrade Ltd, Court of Appeal, 27 July 2006. 09.08.06 Using the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.     02.08.06 The administration of provisional sums within a construction contract.   Midland Expressway v Carillion Construction & Others, CA 15 June 2006. 26.07.06 Whether an adjudicator’s decision was void because the settlement agreement that provided for adjudication had been entered into under economic duress.   Capital Structures Plc v Time & Tide Construction Ltd, TCC 8 March 2006. 19.07.06 The obligations placed upon Arbitrators in respect of bias.   Norbook Laboratories Ltd v (1) A Tank (2) Moulson Champlant Ltd, (TCC) 12 May 2006. 12.07.06 When leave might be granted to appeal against the award of an arbitrator.   The Council of the City of Plymouth v D R Jones (Yeovil) Ltd, (TCC) 31 October 2005. 05.07.06 General review of the Achieving Excellence procurement guides published by the Office of Government commerce.   The government’s “Achieving Excellence in Construction” programme. 28.06.06 The time impact analysis method of delay analysis involves updating the contractor’s master programme with percentage progress at the start of a delaying event.  The programme is then rescheduled to determine the resultant completion date.  The delaying event is then added and the programme rescheduled again.  The difference between the two completion dates, if any, is the delay that is predicted to arise from the delaying event.     21.06.06 Whether an adjudicator’s refusal to consider certain elements of the evidence will cause his decision to be invalid.   Kier Regional Ltd (t/a Wallis) v City & General (Holborn) Ltd, (TCC) 6 March 2006. 14.06.06 The effect of defects upon a quantum meruit valuation.   ERDC Group Ltd v Brunel University, TCC 29 March 2006. 07.06.06 Whether settlement agreements can be used to ascertain loss in the context of subsequent insurance claims.   Enterprise Oil Ltd v Strand Insurance Company Ltd, QBD 26 January 2006. 31.05.06 The extent of an engineering designer’s duties to verify its initial design assumptions.   Ove Arup & Partners International Ltd v Mirant Asia-Pacific Construction (Hong Kong) Ltd, CA 21 December 2005. 24.05.06 The collapsed as-built method of delay analysis requires a logic linked as-built programme to be established from which identified delays are then subtracted to establish a revised completion date as a consequence of their removal.     17.05.06 The effect of the HGCRA on the JCT insolvency provisions.   Melville Dundas Ltd v George Wimpey UK Ltd [2005], Inner House Court of Session, 15 December 2005. 10.05.06 The valuation of works on a quantum meruit basis.   ERDC Group Ltd Brunel University. 03.05.06 Whether a contractor can apply a set-off of monies owed under the building contract to defeat a claim under a collateral warranty.   Safeway Stores Ltd v Interserve Project Services Ltd, TCC 1 December 2005. 26.04.06 The impacted as-planned method of delay analysis relies upon the imposition of delaying events onto the planned programme and can be used for prospective as well as retrospective delay analysis.     19.04.06 The quantification of loss in cases of professional negligence.   Plymouth & South West Co-operative Society Ltd v Architecture, Structure & Management Ltd, TCC, 10 January 2006. 12.04.06 Meaning of “prevention”.   New Engineering Contract, third edition. 05.04.06 The requirement for impartiality and independence of the decision maker under construction contracts.   Scheldebouw BV v St James Homes (Grosvenor Dock) Ltd, TCC 16 January 2006. 29.03.06 The as-planned vs as-built method of delay analysis is a simple approach to modelling delay, but is it really an effective method of delay analysis?     22.03.06 Extension of time claims in adjudications.   Quietfield Ltd v Vascroft Contractors Ltd, [2006] EWHC 174 (TCC). 15.03.06 Selection of appropriate procurement options.   The New Engineering Contract. 08.03.06 Whether an arbitration notice issued under an ICE contract has to comply strictly with the arbitration code incorporated within the contract.   Scrabster Harbour Trust v Mowlem plc, Inner House Court of Session 22 February 2006. 01.03.06 What do you have to do to make a successful claim for an extension of time?   A review of the requirements for the production of an effective claim for delay. 22.02.06 An adjudicator’s power to award interest.   Carillion Construction Ltd v Devonport Royal Dockyard Ltd, Court of Appeal, 17 November 2005. 15.02.06 Under JCT contracts, who is responsible for any design within the Employers’ Requirements?   JCT contracts. 08.02.06 The use of retrospective delay analysis to determine entitlement to extension of time.   Leighton Contractors (Asia) Ltd v Stelux Holdings Ltd, HCHK 10 September 2004. 01.02.06 Whether terms within a standard PFI building contract contravene the requirements of the HGCRA.   Midland Expressway Ltd v Carillion Construction Ltd & Others, TCC 24 November 2005. 25.01.06 Potential amendments to the Construction Act to improve payment practices in the construction industry.   Review of the DTI consultation into the operation of the HGCRA, published 16 January 2006. 18.01.06 Cases of significance or interest over the past 10 years.   Various. 11.01.06 Whether the courts will uphold express obligations between the parties to negotiate in good faith.   Petromec Inc v Petroleo Brasileiro SA, CA 15 July 2005.