Contractual joint ventures

This topic studies the creation and life of contractual joint ventures. Contractual joint ventures are joint ventures created by contract. All joint ventures are contractual joint ventures, unless they are incorporated joint ventures (which are normally a company structure overlaid with a shareholders' agreement).

This topic does not cover corporate joint ventures, but information relating to corporate joint ventures is available, see: Planning (corporate joint ventures)—overview. If you are interested in joint ventures relating to property transactions, see: Joint ventures in property transactions—overview.

A contractual joint venture is not a special relationship recognised by law. This distinguishes a contractual joint venture from a partnership or a trust. A contractual joint venture is not a legal entity separate from its participants; it is not a body corporate. This distinguishes a contractual joint venture from a company, limited liability partnership or other body. In legal terms, a contractual joint venture is simply a contractual relationship and like other contractual relationships, other sources of law will impact on the conduct of the parties.

In a contractual joint venture the relationship is between two or more parties who share

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Commercial News

Commercial weekly highlights—31 July 2025

This week's edition of Commercial weekly highlights includes: commentary on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Stevens v Hotel Portfolio II UK Ltd where the court allowed the appeal, holding that the defendant was liable for assisting a fiduciary who made unauthorised profits in breach of their fiduciary duties, news that certain provisions of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 will come into force on 20 August 2025, and news that the Cabinet Office has updated its guidance on the Procurement Review Unit, which includes the addition of a new scope and remit document for the Public Procurement Review Service.

OPSS publishes annual delivery report for 2024–25 financial year

The Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS) has published its annual delivery report for the 2024–25 financial year. This 80-page report, which includes a statistical annex, details OPSS’s achievements in safeguarding consumers through product regulation. The report maps OPSS’s outcomes against its five core objectives and highlights its collaborative work with local authorities, public sector organisations, businesses, and consumer bodies. It demonstrates how OPSS effectively fulfils its role as the UK's product regulator by ensuring clear and proportionate product regulation that both facilitates trade and protects consumers from product-related harm.

DBT proposes new late payment enforcement powers

The Department for Business and Trade (DBT) has announced plans to introduce legislation giving the Small Business Commissioner new enforcement powers against late payments. The proposed measures include authority to issue fines against large firms, conduct spot checks, and enforce 30-day invoice verification periods. The legislation will establish maximum payment terms of 60 days, reducing to 45 days, with mandatory interest charges for late payments. Audit committees will be legally required to scrutinise payment practices at board level. The measures aim to address late payments that cost the UK economy £11bn annually.

Time bar and deck cargo under the Hague-Visby Rules (Batavia Eximp & Contracting v Pedregal Maritime)

Commercial analysis: This section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) appeal against an arbitrator’s award on a claim for misdelivery raised two issues of interpretation of the Hague-Visby Rules. The court held that starting proceedings to obtain security by way of arresting a vessel was not sufficient to stop time running for the purpose of the Article III,6 one-year time bar; what had to be commenced were substantive proceedings to establish liability. The court also gave guidance as to how deck cargo should be described in bills of lading in order to come within the exclusion of deck cargo from the definition of ‘Goods’ in Article I(c); the court will take a pragmatic, practical and commercial approach in the circumstances. The court upheld the arbitrator’s conclusion that the ‘imperfect’ identification of deck cargo by stating the number of pieces of timber carried on deck was sufficient in this case. Written by Neil Dowers, barrister at 4 Pump Court.