Under the Defective Premises Act 1972 (DPA 1972), a person who takes on work: • for, or in connection with, the provision of a dwelling (DPA 1972, s 1(1)), or • in relation to any part of a ‘relevant building’, which is a building containing one or more dwellings (DPA 1972, s 2A), owes a duty to ensure that the work is done in a workmanlike or, as the case may be, professional manner, with proper materials so that the dwelling is fit for human habitation. 'Fit for habitation' does not impose a separate obligation, but is the standard by which 'workmanlike’/’professional’ manner and 'proper materials' are to be judged. This means that liability under DPA 1972, ss 1(1) and 2A is strict: if the works or materials provided have caused the dwelling to become unfit for habitation, the defendant is liable for breach of the statutory duty, regardless of whether it used reasonable skill and care, or met any other relevant standard in relation to its works or services. However, it

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The High Court has provided additional guidance on the importance of serving a qualifying floating charge holder (QFCH) with notice of intention (NoI) to appointment administrators pursuant to paragraph 26 of schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986). A QFCH was not served with successive NoIs and, during that time, appointed fixed charge receivers over a property. Mr Justice Miles held that the filing of the NoIs and resulting interim moratorium were invalid, and he declared that the receivers were validly appointed and made an order removing the NoIs from the court file.

Immigration analysis: The Supreme Court unanimously held that a civil penalty notice issued under section 15 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (IANA 2006) was invalid because it failed to identify the particular statutory ground on which liability was imposed. Merely reproducing mutually exclusive alternatives and stating that a worker had ‘no right to work’ did not satisfy the requirement to explain why the employer was liable. The defect could not be cured by later correspondence, evidence or the County Court’s rehearing jurisdiction. Practitioners should therefore scrutinise the notice and accompanying documents at the outset, distinguish further evidence from an impermissible reformulation of the alleged contravention, and plead any validity challenge promptly. Produced in partnership with Matthew Howarth, Specialist Immigration, Public Law and Judicial Review barrister at One Crown Office Row, Temple, London.

Construction analysis: This case considered the law of prescription—specifically when the prescriptive period ought to begin in a case of latent defects. A tenant of a hotel property in Aberdeen was notified of defective cladding on their building after investigations made in the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire. The court examined when the pursuer could reasonably have known that they had suffered loss, and how collateral warranties granted by defenders in favour of the pursuer might have had the effect of inducing the pursuer to refrain from recognising their loss or seeking to remedy it. The court held: in order to be aware of the defects, Leonardo would need to know (actually or constructively) the objective facts of their loss. The objective facts, were that (i) Leonardo was entering a lease in which they had repairing responsibilities; (ii) the property was defective. Only (i) applied; the collateral warranties granted by the defenders contained statements inducing Leonardo to believe that the property was free of defects. Leonardo was entitled to rely on the undertakings made in the warranties in relation to the work they had already done and were yet to do to. Written by Louise Shiels, head of Dispute Resolution & Risk at Brodies LLP.

A Checklist for use when acting for a buyer who is considering taking out a policy or relying on an existing policy to plug a defect in title revealed during the due diligence process. A title is defective where it is not good and marketable (see Practice Note: What is a good and marketable title?) or where there is a risk that a third party could establish an interest adverse to the title. In the right circumstances, the right policy can be a useful tool which enables the transaction to proceed and the buyer to secure finance. However, care must be taken to ensure that the policy is worth the paper that it is written on. It is important to consider whether insurance might be the best approach as early as possible, particularly as insurance is not normally available where the party with the benefit of the relevant right or covenant has been approached. Insurance distribution—regulatory requirements Solicitors need to be aware of their duties and obligations when reviewing and procuring defective title insurance on behalf of their clients.

1 The Architect/Contract Administrator may (acting reasonably) nominate the ‘Priority Classification’ of any particular defect, omission,

A certificate, sometimes known as certificate of making good defects, issued pursuant to the building contract by the contract administrator or employer's agent. The certificate confirms that the contractor has repaired any defects, shrinkages or faults that have appeared during the defects liability period.

Defects are a common issue on construction projects. Minor defects or patent defects (ie those which are apparent upon inspection) can often be dealt with during the project or shortly afterwards, but there may also be serious defects, whether in the design or construction, which can threaten the structural integrity of the works. This Practice Note considers how disputes over defects typically arise in construction projects and the potential bases of defects claims—eg breach of a building contract or consultant’s appointment, tort (negligence), third party and collateral warranty claims, recovery under a latent defects insurance policy or other guarantee scheme and claims under the Defective Premises Act 1972 (DPA 1972). It also looks issues relating to the burden of proof and causation, as well as the remedies commonly sought by claimants in defects disputes. For links to specific guidance on building and fire safety defects, including the rights available to claimants in respect of such defects under the Building Safety Act 2022, see Practice Note: Fire safety defect claims for construction lawyers and Building and fire safety

This flowchart sets out the process for defects under the JCT Standard Building Contract and Design and

The liability of a party for defects in their workmanship.

The duration, usually expressed as a period of time for which the Contractor will remain responsible for correcting defects free of charge which arise from his workmanship.

The period, also known as the defects rectification period, following practical completion during which the employer can notify the contractor of defects that have manifested, and the contractor has a right/responsibility for remedying such defects. The length of the defects liability period will be specified in the building contract and is usually six to twelve months.