It is common in construction projects for defects to manifest or appear in the works. Most construction contracts require the contractor to return to site to rectify (also known as ‘make good’) defects which arise or are discovered during a specified period after practical completion of the works. This is typically referred to in the construction industry as the defects liability period (DLP), although the JCT contracts refer to it as the rectification period, NEC uses the term defects date and FIDIC refers to it as the defects notification period. What is a defect? As the DLP relates to the rectification of ‘defects’, it is important to consider what this term covers. ‘Defect’ is not a term of art and there is no ‘standard’ definition of what constitutes a defect in building works. However, in broad terms, a defect is work which does not meet the standard or a specification required by the building contract. This can be due to fault(s) in the work, materials or design, or shortcomings in the quality of the work. For

Work carried out by the contractor which does not meet the standard required by the building contract, including any implied terms in relation to quality.

This flowchart sets out the process under the FIDIC Red, Yellow and Silver Books, 1999 editions, for defects under: • clause 7.5, where any Plant, Materials, design or workmanship is found to be defective or otherwise not in accordance with the Contract and the Employer rejects the affected

This flowchart sets out the process under the FIDIC Red, Yellow and Silver Books, 2017 editions, for defects under: • clause 7.5, where any Plant, Materials, design or workmanship is found to be defective or otherwise not in accordance with the Contract and the Employer rejects the affected Plant, Materials,

This flowchart illustrates the defects process under the NEC3

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) awarded damages to the claimant, in respect of defects in a residential property. The court was required to consider the measure and quantification of damages for defective building works in contract and under the Defective Premises Act 1972 (DPA 1972), and the scope of the ‘fit for habitation’ standard required by DPA 1972.

The statement of case in which the defendant sets out the facts on which he relies in response to the particulars of claim.

Claim No. [insert claim number] [IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE [BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS [OF ENGLAND AND WALES OR IN [insert location]] ] [Specify division] [Specify specialist court] [Insert location] DISTRICT REGISTRY OR THE COUNTY COURT AT [insert location] [BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS LIST] ] BETWEEN [insert name]        Claimant and [insert name]        Defendant _________________________________________ [DRAFT] DEFENCE _________________________________________ 1 All references in this Defence to paragraph numbers are references to the [Amended] Particulars of Claim dated [insert date] unless otherwise stated. The Defendant adopts the abbreviations used in the [Amended] Particulars of Claim. [ Limitation 2 The Claimant’s case is based on [insert cause of action]. On the Claimant’s stated case, that cause of action was complete on [insert

Case No. [insert claim number] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND & WALES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (ChD) [INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENTERPRISE COURT] BETWEEN: [insert full name of claimant]        Claimant and [insert full name of defendant]        Defendant ________________________________________ DEFENCE ________________________________________ DEFENCE 1 Except where otherwise specified, paragraph numbers refer to paragraphs of the Particulars of Claim. 2 Save as specifically pleaded below, the Defendant joins issue with the Claimant on all allegations and arguments made in the Particulars of Claim, and those allegations are denied. Where the Defendant has

Case No. [insert number] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND & WALES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (ChD) [INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENTERPRISE COURT] BETWEEN: [insert full name of claimant]        Claimant and [insert full name of defendant]        Defendant ________________________________________ DEFENCE ________________________________________ 1 In this Defence, unless otherwise indicated: 1.1 paragraph numbers refer to paragraphs of the Particulars of Claim; 1.2 defined terms have the same meanings as those specified in the Particulars of Claim, without admission; and 1.3 the Defendant denies all allegations made in the Particulars of Claim, save as admitted or not admitted below. The Defendant requires to be proved any matter not addressed specifically in this Defence. 2 All documents referred to in this Defence will be referred to at trial for their full terms, meaning and effect. The Claimant and Claimant’s Database

Claim No.: HQ [insert claim number] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE KING'S BENCH DIVISION ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST Parties: (1) [Insert full name of claimant/first claimant] (2) [[Insert full name of second claimant]]        [ Claimant OR Claimants ] and [Insert full name of defendant]        Defendant _____________________________________ DEFENCE _____________________________________ 1 Paragraph 1 of the Particulars of Claim is admitted. It is averred that [add facts and matters about the claimant(s) relevant to defence] 2 Paragraphs 2 and 3 are admitted. 3 It is admitted that the Defendant published an article entitled '[insert title of article or heading or description of publication]' on [insert date] at [insert URL of website in cases of publication online] which included the words complained of set out at paragraph 7 of the Particulars of Claim (the Article). 4 It is admitted, as alleged at paragraph 5 of the Particulars of Claim, that the Article continues to be published and accessible online at www.[URL]. 5 It is admitted that the said words referred to or were understood to refer to the First Claimant. 6 [It is denied that the said words referred to the Second Claimant or were understood to refer to it. The Defendant pleads as follows to the particulars

The House of Commons Defence Committee has concluded that the Ministry of Defence’s (MOD) 2022 Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP) data breach was a foreseeable systemic failure that developed into a wider failure of governance, accountability and public trust. The report finds that the breach resulted from inadequate data protection, unsuitable systems, weak governance, insufficient training and poor accountability, rather than an isolated individual error. It also concludes that the government's prolonged use of a superinjunction restricted parliamentary, public and audit scrutiny while major policy and spending decisions were taken in secret, and recommends stronger cross-government governance, clearer senior accountability and improved oversight of future high-risk operations.