Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court dismissed a claim brought by a tenant against a contractor (pursuant to a collateral warranty) for breach of the defects liability provisions of the building contract (a JCT Standard Form of Building Contract With Contractor’s Design 1998 edition). The effect of the Notice of Completion of Making Good Defects was that any defects required to be rectified under those clauses were deemed to have been made good. The tenant’s claim against the freeholder for failing to enforce the defects liability provisions of the building contract also failed.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial
EXISTING USER? SIGN IN
TAKE A FREE TRIAL
**Trials are provided to all LexisPSL and LexisLibrary content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
This Practice Note considers the different categories of contractual damages that may be available for financial loss (pecuniary loss), ie expectation-based damages, reliance-based damages and gains-based damages.For guidance on contractual damages generally, see Practice Note: Contractual
Community order requirementsCommunity order requirements are set out in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003), as amended by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO 2012) and the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014 (ORA 2014). Criminal Justice Act 2003, s 152(2)
There may be times when, rather than assigning the benefit of an agreement to a third party, the original parties wish instead to end their obligations to each other under that agreement and, in effect, recreate it, with the third party stepping into the shoes of one of the original parties. This is
This Precedent letter covers disclosure obligations under CPR 31. It does not apply to proceedings subject to the disclosure pilot scheme under CPR PD 51U. For guidance on the disclosure pilot scheme, see Practice Note: Business and Property Courts—the disclosure pilot scheme. For a client letter on
0330 161 1234
To view our latest legal guidance content,sign-in to Lexis®PSL or register for a free trial.