Note: • this Precedent gives specific guidance on matters proceeding in the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) under the provisions set out in CPR 60, CPR PD 60 and the TCC Guide. As these provisions are additional to the general provisions set out elsewhere in the CPR, this Practice Note should be read in conjunction with general guidance on preparing for and attending trial including that in Trial—overview which, in turn, links through to detailed guidance on specific aspects of preparing for and attending trials • shorter and flexible trials schemes—claims started on or after 1 October 2015 in the TCC may be suitable for and/or be subject to one or both of the permanent schemes now operating under CPR PD 57AB, namely the shorter trials scheme and/or the flexible trials scheme. For more information on these schemes, see Practice Notes: Business and Property Courts—shorter trials scheme and Business and Property Courts—flexible trials scheme • electronic working—for information on electronic working in the TCC, see Practice Note: TCC—starting a claim—High Court or County Court?—Electronic working and filing of documents • multi-track—all

Note: • this Practice Note gives specific guidance on matters proceeding in the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) under the provisions set out in CPR 60, CPR PD 60 and the TCC Guide. As these provisions are additional to the general provisions set out elsewhere in the CPR, this Practice Note should be read in conjunction with general guidance on preparing for and attending trial including that in Trial—overview which, in turn, links through to detailed guidance on specific aspects of preparing for and attending trials • shorter and flexible trials schemes—claims started on or after 1 October 2015 in the TCC may be suitable for and/or be subject to one or both of the schemes operating under CPR PD 57AB, namely the shorter trials scheme and/or the flexible trials scheme. For more information on these schemes, see Practice Notes: Business and Property Courts—shorter trials scheme and Business and Property Courts—flexible trials scheme • electronic working—for information on electronic working in the TCC, see Practice Note: TCC—starting a claim—High Court or County Court?—Electronic working

Note: • this Practice Note gives specific guidance on matters proceeding in the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) under the provisions set out in CPR 60, CPR PD 60 and the TCC Guide. As these provisions are additional to the general provisions set out elsewhere in the CPR, this Practice Note should be read in conjunction with general guidance on preparing for and attending trial including that in Trial—overview which, in turn, links through to detailed guidance on specific aspects of preparing for and attending trials • shorter and flexible trials schemes—claims started on or after 1 October 2015 in the TCC may be suitable for and/or be subject to one or both of the schemes operating under CPR PD 57AB, namely the shorter trials scheme and/or the flexible trials scheme. For more information on these schemes, see Practice Notes: Business and Property Courts—shorter trials scheme and Business and Property Courts—flexible trials scheme • electronic working—for information on electronic working in the TCC, see Practice Note: TCC—starting a claim—High Court or County Court?—Electronic working and filing

The second edition of the Pre-Action Protocol for Construction and Engineering Disputes (the Protocol) provides for a procedure whereby the parties can appoint a 'protocol referee' to give directions for the conduct of the Protocol process or to settle issues of non-compliance with the Protocol. The Protocol Referee Procedure (PRP) was developed and published jointly by the Technology and Construction Solicitors’ Association (TeCSA) and the Technology and Construction Bar Association (TECBAR). A copy of the PRP is available here: The decision of a referee is binding on the parties in the Protocol process—see The decision of the referee below. However, until a decision has been issued by the referee, the Protocol process is unaffected by the PRP, ie the time periods continue to run under the Protocol (PRP para 1.6). How does a party start the procedure? Both parties must agree in order for the procedure to be used. The claimant should state whether it wishes the PRP to apply in its letter of claim and the defendant provide its position in the letter of acknowledgement.

Note: • this Practice Note gives specific guidance on matters proceeding in the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) under the provisions set out in CPR 60, CPR PD 60 and the TCC Guide. As these provisions are additional to the general provisions set out elsewhere in the CPR, this Practice Note should be read in conjunction with general guidance on preparing for and attending trial including that in Trial—overview which, in turn, links through to detailed guidance on specific aspects of preparing for and attending trials • shorter and flexible trials schemes—claims started on or after 1 October 2015 in the TCC may be suitable for and/or be subject to one or both of the schemes operating under CPR PD 57AB, namely the shorter trials scheme and/or the flexible trials scheme. For more information on these schemes, see Practice Notes: Business and Property Courts—shorter trials scheme and Business and Property Courts—flexible trials scheme • electronic working—for information on electronic working in the TCC, see Practice Note: TCC—starting a claim—High Court or County Court?—Electronic working and filing

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note provides a history of the background to the second edition of the Pre-Action Protocol for Construction and Engineering Disputes (the Protocol), which came into force on 9 November 2016, replacing the first edition which had been in force from October 2000 (with some revisions from April 2007). It looks at, in chronological order, the key recommendations made by Lord Justice Jackson to amend the Protocol, as set out in his final costs report in 2009, comments and steps taken by the relevant Civil Justice Council working party and the Civil Procedure Rule Costs Sub-Committee, and finally at the Acuigen Report produced following a survey of the industry about the first edition of the Protocol (and the process generally). STOP PRESS: an amended version of the Technology and Construction Court Guide was published on 13 October 2022. For further information, see News Analysis: Technology and Construction Court Guide—updated October 2022. Content and links to the Technology and Construction Court Guide in Lexis®+ UK will be updated shortly.

ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note provides a comparison between the first and second editions of the Protocol. The second edition came into force on 9 November 2016. Full copies of the first and second editions of the protocol are available here: Heading First edition Second Edition Changes Introduction 1.1 This pre-action protocol applies to all construction and engineering disputes (including professional negligence claims against architects, engineers and quantity surveyors). 1.1 This pre-action protocol applies to all construction and engineering disputes (including professional negligence claims against architects, engineers and quantity surveyors). No change. Exceptions 1.2 A claimant shall not be required to comply with this Protocol before commencing proceedings to the extent that the proposed proceedings (i) are for the enforcement of the decision of an adjudicator to whom a dispute has been referred pursuant to section 108 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (“the 1996 Act”), (ii) include a claim for interim injunctive relief, (iii) will be the subject of a claim for summary judgment pursuant to Part 24 of

Note: • this Practice Note gives specific guidance on matters proceeding in the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) under the provisions set out in CPR 60, CPR PD 60 and the TCC Guide. As these provisions are additional to the general provisions set out elsewhere in the CPR, this Practice Note should be read in conjunction with general guidance on preparing for and attending trial including that in Trial—overview which, in turn, links through to detailed guidance on specific aspects of preparing for and attending trials • shorter and flexible trials schemes—claims started on or after 1 October 2015 in the TCC may be suitable for and/or be subject to one or both of the schemes operating under CPR PD 57AB, namely the shorter trials scheme and/or the flexible trials scheme. For more information on these schemes, see Practice Notes: Business and Property Courts—shorter trials scheme and Business and Property Courts—flexible trials scheme • electronic working—for information on electronic working in the TCC, see Practice Note: TCC—starting a claim—High Court or County Court?—Electronic working and filing

This Practice Note considers the requirements of the second edition of the Pre-Action Protocol for Construction and Engineering Disputes (the Protocol) which must be complied with before parties can commence proceedings in respect of construction or engineering disputes (including professional negligence claims against architects, engineers and quantity surveyors). These requirements include the provision of a letter of claim, letter of response and reply to any counterclaim, as well as attendance at a without prejudice meeting. Guidance and practical considerations for each step are also covered, as well as other provisions in the Protocol, such as objections to jurisdiction, the use of expert evidence, and the ability to extend the time for compliance. A summary of the key steps that the parties must undertake is also set out in: Key steps for compliance with Construction Pre-Action Protocol—checklist. It is important to be aware that the parties do not need to follow the process prescribed by the Protocol if they agree not to, or if the dispute comes within one of the permitted exceptions—see

[ON THE HEADED NOTEPAPER OF CLAIMANT’S SOLICITORS] [Name of defendant or defendant’s solicitor, if known] [Address] [Date] Dear [insert contact name] [Insert names of parties and project, and any relevant references] 1 [As you are aware, we OR We] act for [client][ in respect of its claim against your client, [insert name], in relation to [brief description of dispute]]. [We refer to our previous correspondence, in particular our letter of [date], relating to this matter, to which we have had no [satisfactory ]response.] 2 This letter of claim is written in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Construction and Engineering Disputes (the Protocol), a copy of which is enclosed for your ease of reference. Ignoring this letter and failing to comply with the Protocol may increase your client’s liability for costs. 3 Pursuant to section 8 of the Protocol, you must acknowledge receipt of this letter of claim by [insert date 14 days from receipt], and provide your substantive response by [insert date 28 days from receipt]. In the absence of an acknowledgement or substantive response to this letter within those time

This Practice Note deals with who owes duties and what duties are owed under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (C(DM) Regs 2015), SI 2015/51. One issue in construction sites accidents is understanding which party owes the duty of care. Construction sites often involve complex contractual relationships. For example, one party may own the site and the work, a separate construction firm may carry out the work and that construction firm may then sub-contract aspects of the work to other companies. Often the supply of labourers is itself sub-contracted to specialist employment agencies. Contracts for the provisions of equipment often include the provision for the supply of skilled operators and such operators themselves may be self-employed or supplied under sub-contracts between the equipment supplier and an agency. Post 1 October 2013 On 1 October 2013, section 69 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (ERRA 2013) came into force. For workplace accidents occurring from that date, civil liability no longer arises from a breach of health and safety statutory duty unless the relevant regulation

Construction analysis: The court rejected Southside’s argument that the appointment of a provisional liquidator of the original contractor company defeated the assignment of the original company’s claim and prevented Eden Homes from bringing the claim. Instead, the court confirmed that no automatic vesting of the claim to the provisional liquidator occurred on such an appointment following the insolvency of the original contractor and that the earlier assignment of the claim to Eden Homes’s predecessor remained effective, thereby securing Eden Homes’ right to make the claim. The court also held that the adjudicator had jurisdiction to award interest, emphasising that a responding party in an adjudication must raise a clear and specific jurisdictional challenge; mere participation with general reservations is insufficient. The judgment clarifies the limits of a liquidator’s powers over a company’s assets and reinforces the principle that adjudication jurisdiction challenges must be explicit and timely. Written by Jonathan Pawlowski, partner at Howard Kennedy LLP.