Standard form appointments

When a professional consultant is engaged on a construction project by an employer, there needs to be agreement between them as to what the consultant is to do and how much it will be paid. This can be effected by an exchange of letters between the employer and consultant (although a full form of appointment is usually advisable), or by the consultant submitting to the employer its own standard terms of engagement (which are likely of course to be drafted in the consultant's favour).

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 Construction News

Joint ventures on construction projects—who can adjudicate? (Darchem Engineering v Bouygues Travaux)

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) refused to summarily enforce an adjudicator’s decision made in favour of a company, which company was one of two partners in an unincorporated joint venture. The joint venture had been appointed as sub-contractor, under a sub-contract for works at a nuclear facility. The court found that the company alone was not a party to the sub-contract, and so the adjudicator had lacked jurisdiction. The case emphasises the need for parties to carefully consider the legal implications of carrying on projects as an unincorporated joint venture.

Judge compels arbitration in Dubai after previous arbitration centre’s abolition

Arbitration analysis: (4 February 2026) NEW ORLEANS—On remand from the Fifth Circuit US Court of Appeals, a Louisiana federal judge compelled arbitration of a US$1.3m dispute over a Saudi oil and gas project at the Dubai International Arbitration Center (DIAC), rebuffing the parties’ competing arguments for arbitration in London or Saudi Arabia, which each side maintained would be a better option after the abolition of the Dubai arbitration institution at which they had previously agreed to arbitrate.

Defence strike out—still leaves a hill to climb in proving the claim in the absence of the defendant and their evidence (One Hyde Park v Laing O’Rourke)

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) awarded damages totalling approximately £35 million against a main contractor for construction defects in a luxury residential development. The claim by the freehold owner, under a collateral warranty, concerned serious defects at One Hyde Park including corroded chilled water pipework, failed butterfly valves, defective soldered joints and a non-functioning pantograph cradle. The defendant participated fully in proceedings until withdrawing funding and entering liquidation just before the February 2025 trial date despite its parent company's strong financial position. Following the defendant’s elective withdrawal, the court struck out the defence under CPR 39.3(1) but still required the claimant to prove its case, with the court's ability to test evidence being heavily constrained in the absence of cross-examination. The status of factual and expert evidence, where the defendant is not represented or present at trial, is considered and decided in this judgment, with reference to various legal authorities. Through examination of the evidence, including analysis of joint expert statements, the court found systematic breaches of the JCT contract through poor installation workmanship and defective materials, while confirming that expert reports have no evidential status unless the expert is called to verify them on oath. The judge criticised the defendant's conduct as ‘commercially amoral’ and accepted unchallenged expert evidence on the substantial remedial costs.

Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2026

The Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2026, SI 2026/97 amend the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. Most provisions commence on 6 April 2026, with two amendments commencing at a date to be determined by other legislation.