Tort for construction lawyers

The general law of contract and the law of tort are central elements of construction law. The principles of tort examined in this subtopic therefore underpin the construction law topics that are covered in Construction and, for construction lawyers, present an additional set of considerations and risks.

A ‘tort’ is a civil wrong that occurs where someone unfairly causes another person to suffer loss or harm.

A person committing a tort is legally liable to the party injured, who is provided with a remedy in law, such as monetary damages or an injunction to compel or prevent certain conduct. An injured party who decides to pursue the matter in court is known as the claimant, and the person alleged to be responsible for the damage is the defendant or tortfeasor.

In the context of a construction project, tortious liability can arise in a number of different ways. This sub-topic examines the most common form of tort law, negligence, and breach of statutory duty. It

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

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Construction News

One arbitration, two courts, multiple injunctions (MSA Global LLC (Oman) v Engineering Projects (India) Ltd)

Arbitration analysis: This dispute is a rare case of two competing court interventions in relation to an arbitration. A non-seat court in Delhi decided to exercise certain supervisory functions by issuing an anti-arbitration injunction. The seat court in Singapore disagreed that the non-seat court had the jurisdiction to do so, and also issued an anti-suit injunction. EPIL (the contractor) sought to set aside a Singapore-seated partial award in the Singapore High Court. The Singapore High Court (as the seat court) dismissed EPIL’s setting aside application, and its attempt to introduce apparent bias of an arbitrator as an additional ground for setting aside. While EPIL brought another challenge application against the same arbitrator in Singapore, it has commenced proceedings in the Delhi Court also to challenge the arbitrator, and to enjoin the counterparty (MSA, the sub-contractor) from continuing with the Arbitration. The Singapore Court first granted an interim anti-suit injunction for the Delhi Proceedings. But the Delhi Proceedings carried on, and led to an interim anti-arbitration injunction by the Delhi Proceedings. The Singapore Court in its judgment granted a permanent anti-suit injunction against EPIL in relation to the Delhi Proceedings, finding also that the Delhi Court had no power to intervene in the Arbitration. Written by Violet Huang, counsel at Colin Seow Chambers.

View Construction by content type :

Popular documents