- Lexis®PSL Construction weekly highlights—21 April 2016
- In this issue:
- Headlines (News updates & analysis)
- No breach of natural justice but adjudicator exceeds jurisdiction (Stellite Construction v Vascroft Contractors)
- In brief—arbitral appeal concerning payment following termination (Sisk v Carmel)
- In brief—statutory demands and interim applications (COD Hyde v Space Change)
- In brief—challenge to construction training levy fails (R (Hudson) v BIS)
- In brief—no penalty for contractor who was unaware of CIS scheme (Donnithorne v HMRC)
- RIBA contracts—what are the risks for contractors?
- Construction and gender parity
- National BIM Report 2016 published
- CMA civil investigation: Supply of precast concrete drainage products—Investigation opened
- Relevant updates from other practice areas
- High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court
- High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court
- High Court of Justice, Chancery Division
- First-tier Tax Tribunal
- Dates for your diary
- Useful information
Welcome to the weekly Construction highlights from the Lexis®PSL Construction team for the week ending 21 April 2016. This week’s edition of Construction highlights includes analysis of Stellite Construction v Vascroft Contractors (in which an adjudicator was found to have exceeded his jurisdiction), Sisk v Carmel (an appeal of an arbitral award concerning payment following termination) and COD Hyde v Space Change (which concerned a statutory demand made against an employer who had failed to make interim payments). We look as well at a challenge to the new construction training levy (R (Hudson) v BIS) and a tax decision concerning the CIS (Donnithorne v HMRC). Also this week, James Worthington and Tim Raper of Charles Russell Speechlys look at the risks to contractors under RIBA contracts, and Sarah Schütte of Schutte Consulting and Clare Bristow of Arup Group comment on gender parity in construction. We also highlight analysis of interest to Construction practitioners from other practice areas, including an analysis of the Public Procurement (Amendments, Repeals and Revocations) Regulations 2016.
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