CDM regulations

CDM regulations

The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (the CDM Regulations) are intended to make health and safety a proper and routine consideration in the planning and management of construction projects and ensure that the duties of the various parties are clear. The CDM Regulations aim to reduce the risk of harm to those involved in the building, use, maintenance and demolition of structures and set out a framework to make this happen. See Practice Note: Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015.

The the CDM Regulations came into force on 6 April 2015 (replacing and revoking the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007). See Practice Note: CDM Regulations 2015—what's changed? [Archived] and Checklist: CDM Regulations 2015 vs CDM Regulations 2007 [Archived].

The CDM Regulations apply to all 'construction work' (as defined in regulation 2) and, the definition of 'client' in the CDM Regulations ('any person for whom a project is carried out') is broad enough to cover both domestic and commercial clients.

The CDM Regulations impose duties on five key parties to a construction project who are referred to as the duty holders—the

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

Construction weekly highlights—5 December 2024

This week's edition of Construction weekly highlights includes publication of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG)’s new Remediation Acceleration Plan aimed at identifying unsafe buildings and expediting the removal of unsafe cladding, a case where the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) enforced an adjudicator’s decision in favour of a claimant in administration, subject to a stay of execution (Malin v Volkerfitzpatrick), a case where the TCC granted declarations sought by an employer in relation to unlawful suspension and termination of a design and build contract and the contractor’s consequent repudiatory breach (BNP Paribas v Briggs & Forrester), publication by the International Federation of Consulting Engineers (FIDIC) of a new practice note, focusing on the appointment of dispute boards and a review of the historic causes of insolvency, and analysis considering the lessons to be learned from recent case studies and the wider implications for key players in the industry.

FIDIC publishes new practice note on dispute board appointments

The International Federation of Consulting Engineers (FIDIC) has published a new practice note, focusing on the appointment of dispute boards. Produced by FIDIC’s Dispute Avoidance and Adjudication Forum, this practice note provides comprehensive guidance on key aspects of selecting and appointing dispute boards within FIDIC contracts. It covers various topics, including considerations for choosing between standing or ad-hoc boards, determining board composition, adhering to contractual appointment procedures and timelines, and ensuring that potential board members fulfil contractual requirements, among other aspects.

DBT launches Fair Payment and Disability Finance Codes to support SMEs

The Department for Business and Trade (DBT) has launched the Fair Payment Code and Disability Finance Code for Entrepreneurship to support small and medium-sized enterprises (SMES) and foster economic growth. The Fair Payment Code, overseen by the Small Business Commissioner, features a gold, silver, and bronze tiered system to reward best payment practices and tackle late payments to SMEs, aiming to improve cash flow. The Disability Finance Code for Entrepreneurship, supported by UK banks such as Barclays, HSBC UK, Lloyds Banking Group, and NatWest, seeks to improve access to finance for disabled entrepreneurs and encourage stronger engagement between the financial services sector and the disabled entrepreneur community, potentially unlocking £230bn in economic growth.

Adjudication—claimant’s insolvency should not be used as a ‘shield’ to enforcement (Malin v Volkerfitzpatrick)

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) enforced an adjudicator’s decision in favour of a claimant in administration, subject to a stay of execution. Though the defendant maintained a counterclaim against the claimant, and the claimant had offered no security in respect of that counterclaim, the court was not satisfied that the counterclaim was strong enough to justify an outright refusal to enforce.