The plan that the CDM Regulations require the ‘principal contractor’ to produce on a project to ensure the health and safety of those carrying out the works and those who may be affected by them, eg visitors to the site, members of the public and users of the completed building, by identifying and addressing all the risks to health and safety arising from the works.

In a typical construction project, the main contractor takes responsibility for the site with effect from the date of possession and then remains responsible for it until practical completion. For example, JCT Insurance Option A requires the main contractor to have in place a joint insurance policy until the practical completion certificate has been issued (see Practice Note: JCT contracts—insurance). The importance of CDM The UK construction industry employs more than two million people, more than 6% of the UK workforce. However, despite considerable improvements in culture, processes and risk controls, it still remains one of the most dangerous industries to work in with on average 40–50 deaths on construction sites each year. The industry has been living with 'Construction (Design and Management) Regulations' since 1994. In fact, there have been three sets of 'CDM Regulations' since then. The 2015 incarnation came about in part due to the previous government's keenness for de-regulation, in part due to the fact that the original (1994) regulations did not transpose the EU Temporary or Mobile Construction

When acting for the potential purchaser of a property or a development, the first step in the process is to carry out an initial review of the construction documentation provided. A list of the issues which should be checked can be found in Checklist: Construction due diligence for property purchase—initial review of construction package—checklist. Following the initial review of documents, the next step is to raise initial enquiries of the seller's lawyers in order to obtain information which is not available within the construction documents provided. This document contains a list of sample questions that may be raised following the initial document review. Obviously the questions which will be raised will depend on the information and documents provided by the seller and this list will need to be amended to suit the particular circumstances. Typically, only copies of the contracts and appointments entered into will be provided and, as a result, there is always other information which is not apparent, but which needs to be obtained, in order to properly advise a purchaser. The list of questions is divided

This Practice Note provides an overview of construction and engineering projects in the UK defence sector. It outlines the Ministry of Defence (MOD)’s spending and procurement policies, applicable public procurement rules, the Defence Reform Act 2014 (DRA 2014) and Single Source Contract Regulations 2014 (SSCR 2014), and the use of standard form construction contracts. The core principles of the DRA 2014 and SSCR 2014 are central to MOD procurement, but the landscape is evolving. The Procurement Act 2023 (PA 2023), updated NEC4 frameworks, and strengthened sustainability and SME targets reflect a continued emphasis on transparency, value for money, and innovation across the defence estate. A major restructuring of UK defence began in 2025 with the Strategic Defence Review and Defence Reform programme. This Practice Note reflects policy and legislative changes as of October 2025, including developments under the PA 2023, the MOD SME Action Plan 2022–2025, and updates to the NEC4 contracts (2023 edition). Spending policy Defence is organised into six ‘Top Level Budgets’ (TLBs): • Head Office and Corporate Services

This Practice Note considers the key issues and risks which commonly arise on a major build project for an education provider, covering higher education, further education, academies and independent schools. See also Practice Note: Building Schools for the Future/Priority School Building Programme [Archived]. Typical procurement routes While any normal procurement route is feasible on an education project, three factors are commonly the driving force behind the typical procurement routes taken by education clients in respect of their construction projects: Nature of client Education clients by their very nature infrequently procure major capital projects. It is not their core business and, save for large university estate teams, they rarely have the in-house skills to successfully procure major works. They would be classified as inexperienced construction clients. Funding Funding is frequently capped and time limited. This means that works will usually be procured on the basis of a fixed price contract at largely higher cost that gives the degree of certainty control that both funders (be it public or private investment) and governors

This Practice Note explains the principles relating to unfixed materials on construction projects and the rules relating to their inclusion in interim payments. It looks at the approach in the JCT and NEC contracts. For an introduction to interim payments generally and the rules relating to them, see Practice Note: Interim payments in construction contracts. For guidance on issues concerning the transfer of title in materials specific to Scots law, see Practice Note: Transfer of title in materials in construction contracts under Scots law. The main purpose of making interim payments is to avoid the contractor having to wait until the works are completed to receive payment. A contractor is paid for the work it completes as the work progresses and these payments allow it to fund future purchases of labour, materials and plant in order to complete the remainder of the works. Many contractors would be unable to complete a project without receiving interim payments (and where the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 applies, construction contracts must provide for interim payments—see Practice Note: Interim

This week's edition of Construction weekly highlights includes a case in which the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) rejected arguments that a sub-contractor’s claims were compromised in a company voluntary arrangement and that an adjudicator's decision had been procured by fraud (Henry Construction v ProMEP), a case in which the court considered an application for reverse summary judgment with regard to breach of contract and unjust enrichment (Matrix Receivables v Musst Holdings), publication of the seventh annual survey of international arbitration statistics by the LexisNexis Arbitration Blog, and guidance published by the Crown Commercial Service (CCS) on the meaning of ‘call-off’ in procurement.

This week's edition of Construction weekly highlights includes the publication of a report by the Competence Steering Group (CSG) introducing new standards and frameworks in the built environment industry, guidance from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) on mandatory occurrence reporting in relation to higher-risk buildings, a case in which the TCC considered whether to strike out or stay court proceedings brought in breach of a mandatory adjudication clause (Lancashire Schools v Lendlease), a case in which the Court of Session rejected a natural justice challenge to an adjudicator’s decision (UK Grid Solutions v Scottish Hydro Electric) and publication of the Construction Leadership Council (CLC)’s response to the government’s construction policy framework, ahead of the Spring Budget 2024.

This week's edition of Construction weekly highlights includes a case in which the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) found that parties had concluded a construction contract through WhatsApp messages (Jaevee v Fincham), a case in which the Court of Session considered competing interpretations of a settlement agreement arising from a construction dispute (Dragados v Port of Aberdeen), a case in which the TCC rejected jurisdictional and natural justice challenges to an adjudicator’s decision (LAPP Industries v 1st Formations), Homes England’s updated Cladding Safety Scheme (CSS) guidance on pre-tender support, the Public Procurement (Revocation) Regulations 2025 coming into force, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ)’s consultation on the revised National Policy Statements, and a statement from the Construction Leadership Council (CLC) highlighting the impact of US tariffs on the UK construction sector.

This week's edition of Construction weekly highlights includes an analysis of the Joint Contracts Tribunal (JCT) Framework Agreement 2024 Edition (FA 2024), a case in which the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) refused to enforce an adjudicator’s decision made in favour of a contractor against the employer’s assignee (Grove Construction v Bagshot Manor), commentary on the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb)’s Guideline on the Use of AI in Arbitration, the release of updated versions of the National House Building Council (NHBC)’s Buildmark and Buildmark Choice warranty policy documents, publication of the LexisNexis legal technology trends report for 2025, and publication of S&P Global’s March 2025 UK Construction PMI report.

This week's edition of Construction weekly highlights includes the introduction of the Building Safety (Wales) Bill, a case in which the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) awarded damages, including trading losses and abortive legal costs, against a contractor in respect of fire safety defects in a care home (Toppan v Simply), the Court of Appeal’s dismissal of a developer’s appeal against the award of a remediation contribution in Triathlon Homes v Stratford Village Development, new regulations and guidance addressing fire safety protocols for vulnerable residents of high-rise buildings, a decision of the TCC affirming that adjudicators may have jurisdiction to decide disputes relating to settlement agreements that vary the original construction contract (London Eco Homes v Raise Now Ealing), and the Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA)’s guidance on performance specifications for offsite construction projects.

This week's edition of Construction weekly highlights includes a Commercial Court case clarifying the distinction between guarantees and indemnities and examining the effect of a claim of equitable set-off (Brown-Forman Beverages Europe v Bacardi UK), a Commercial Court case related to forum non conveniens in relation to contribution proceedings (Samsung Electronics v LG Display Co Ltd), a new procurement policy note on the government’s carbon reduction plans, the publication of five main FIDIC contracts in the Chinese language and a response from the government on changes to the Architects Act 1997.