The International Federation of Consulting Engineers (FIDIC) has opened its 2025 Official International Contract Users Conference in London. CEO Susanna Zammataro emphasised FIDIC's role in providing certainty in construction projects amid global uncertainty. FIDIC president Alfredo Ingletti paid tribute to special advisor Dr Nael Bunni, who passed away last week after three decades of work on FIDIC contracts covering risk, liability, insurance, and dispute resolution. Conference sessions focused on the evolving role of engineers within FIDIC contracts, particularly their dual function as both employers' agents and neutral decision makers. Discussions also explored the human behavioural factors that influence project delivery.

Under section 135(1)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996), an employee may claim a statutory redundancy payment without being dismissed in one of two situations: • where the employee is ‘laid-off’ by the employer, ie when the employer temporarily shuts down its operation because it cannot find any or enough work for the employees • where an employee is put on short-time working—short-time working occurs where the employer requires the employee to do less than their full contractual hours and the employee receives less pay as a result In summary, a statutory redundancy payment is payable where: • there

For information on the possible uplift of an award of compensation arising from failure to follow the Acas Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures generally, see Practice Notes: • Acas disciplinary and grievance code—effect of non-compliance • Acas disciplinary and grievance code—application Where a Code of Practice is issued by Acas under Chapter III, Part IV of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULR(C)A 1992): • failure to observe any provision of that Code will not of itself render a person liable to any proceedings, however • the

This Practice Note sets out the legal and practical considerations which arise when changing an employee's terms and conditions of employment. It is highly likely that an employer will, at some time during the employment relationship, wish to change the terms and conditions on which any particular employee or group of employees is engaged. This need may arise due to matters such as: • annual pay reviews • promotion of the employee • the need to ensure contracts are up to date with new legislation • changing terms relating to enhanced (contractual) redundancy pay or maternity or other family-related leave and pay, or relating to a pension scheme • business reorganisation • economic reasons, eg if an organisation is considering a restructure or other changes to stay competitive in a changing market • a desire to harmonise disparate terms and conditions of employment which have arisen over time across a business, or to overhaul standard contracts generally The employee may also wish to seek changes to the employment contract, for example if

A contract of sale refers to the transfer of property in goods from the seller to the buyer which takes place at the time of the contract without conditions or under certain conditions at some time in the future.

Article 3 of Rome I Where parties have entered into a contract which contains an applicable law clause, the parties must have validly consented to that clause. Where a party has not they may dispute the existence or validity of that clause as provided for in Article 3(5) of Regulation (EC) 593/2008, Rome I. This article states that the existence and validity of an agreement is to be determined in accordance with Article 10 of Regulation (EC) 593/2008, Rome I, Article 11 of Regulation (EC) 593/2008, Rome I and Article 12 of Regulation (EC)

'MF/4' is one of the suite of Model Forms published on behalf of the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) and the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. It is for use as a home (ie UK) or overseas agreement for the provision of consultancy service by engineering consultants. The commentary published by IET to accompany MF/4 states that the contract is intended largely for investigative or advisory services and is not intended to be used where a consultant is being engaged to: • lead, project manage or perform other services in relation to a complex project • provide design services to a contractor As a contract for the supply of services in relation to a construction or engineering project, MF/4 may be a 'construction contract' for the purposes of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA 1996). However, the conditions do not reflect the relevant statutory requirements in respect of the payment terms or by providing for the adjudication of disputes. See Practice Notes: What is a construction contract under the HGCRA 1996? and Interim payments in

EU Law analysis: The Advocate General’s Opinion in these three references to the Court of Justice for preliminary rulings arise out of the practices of some vehicle manufacturers to equip a vehicle’s engine with a device, known as a defeat device, which distorts the results of tests for emissions of polluting gases. The devices in these cases were sophisticated, in that they suppressed the reduction of certain emissions by reference to the outside temperature and altitude at which the vehicle was operated. The Advocate General (AG) concluded that the devices were prohibited defeat devices contrary to applicable EU law. Further, he concluded that the purchaser of a vehicle with a prohibited defeat device had a right under EU law to cancel the contract of sale because the lack of conformity with relevant vehicle standards was not a minor irregularity. Written by Denis Edwards, barrister at Normanton Chambers.

The Supreme Court has unanimously held that a collateral warranty does not constitute a ‘construction contract’ for the purposes of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA 1996) and thus that it does not provide the right to statutory adjudication. In passing judgement, the Supreme Court considered the meaning of an agreement ‘for....construction operations’, as per HGCRA 1996, s 104(1) and whether the collateral warranty in this case was such an agreement construed with regards to it being an agreement for the carrying out of construction operations. Barry Hembling, Partner at Watson Farley & Williams, who acted for the respondent in this case, comments on the implications of the judgement.

Rectification is an equitable remedy by which the court can correct an error of expression where a written document does not match the parties' intention. Common or mutual mistake arises where: • all parties executed a document that purported to record a prior transaction • the prior transaction consisted of either a concluded agreement or a common intention (which must have been demonstrated) continuing up to the time of execution of the document • there must be evidence of some antecedent outward expression of accord between the parties • the document, as

Consideration may need to be given to the law relating to unlawful deductions from wages, and penalties/liquidated damages clauses. Deductions from wages Under section 27(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996), wages means any sums payable to a worker in connection with their employment, including (among other things) holiday pay, whether statutory or contractual. Under ERA 1996, s 13, an employer cannot make any deductions from the wages of a worker unless: • the deduction is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a statutory provision, eg the requirement to make deductions for income tax or National Insurance contributions via Pay As You Earn (PAYE) • the deduction is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a relevant provision of the worker's contract, eg where the employer provides

This Practice Note considers statements (whether oral or written) made by one party to another prior to entering into a formal contract and gives an overview of the circumstances in which that statement could be said to form part of the contract or give rise to other remedies. For further information, see Practice Note: Contract interpretation—admissibility of pre-contractual negotiations and statements. For more information on pre-contractual and contractual representations and their distinction from warranties in a commercial context, see Practice Note: Representations and warranties in commercial contracts. Potential rights and remedies arising from pre-contractual statements made before a contract is signed Statements are often made by one party to another as part of the pre-contract negotiations (for example as part of a sales process). Disputes can arise around whether, or which, statements are intended to form part of the contract or potentially give rise to other remedies. Depending on the facts, a pre-contractual statement might take legal effect (and give rise to remedies) as follows: • Contractual terms: In certain circumstances the statement may: ◦ be