This week's edition of Construction weekly highlights includes an analysis of the Joint Contracts Tribunal (JCT)’s 2024 Management Building Contract and Construction Management Contract, publication of updated Approved Document B (Fire Safety) by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), publication by the Cabinet Office of PPN 019, an arbitration case where the Singapore Court of Appeal partially set aside an award for breach of natural justice, the introduction by the MHCLG of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, an analysis of potential areas of dispute that could arise in relation to low carbon hydrogen projects, the Department for Business and Trade (DBT)’s updated guidance on statutory payment practices and performance reporting requirements and S&P Global’s publication of the February 2025 UK Construction Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) report.

Where a multi-supplier framework includes provision for varying the terms for each call-off, where in the procurement/contract documents should this be specified? Where a contracting authority wants the ability to vary the terms for each call-off under a framework it is important that the framework agreement includes provisions for varying the terms/mechanism for call-offs. The framework agreement will need to set out the mechanisms for awarding the call-off, which will be done either through a direct call-off or through a mini-competition. Where the framework agreement contains provisions for varying the terms it is important that this extends only to allowing the terms of a call-off to be refined or amended. However, to be clear, it cannot go as far as making substantial amendments, as set out in regulation 33(11) of the Public Contract Regulations 2015,

Introduction Prior to September 2008, numerous small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) entered into interest rate hedging products (IRHPs) to support borrowing with major financial institutions. In the wake of the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the ensuing financial crisis, they found themselves paying for either swaps which they did not need or paying far more than was originally envisaged to terminate the products. Typically, the purpose of IRHPs was to protect against fluctuations in interest rates. These can be broken down into: • swaps—which fix interest at an agreed rate • caps—which create a limit on any interest rate rises • collars—which limit interest rate movements within a specified range, and • structured collars—which limit interest rate movements within a specified range, but also involve arrangements where, if the reference interest rate falls below the bottom of the range, the interest rate payable by the customer may increase above the bottom of the range Banks commonly made the purchase of IRHPs a condition to lending

These new starter guide collections take lawyers through the environmental issues and tasks arising in four transactions—share purchase, asset purchase, commercial property and leases. The guides cover the entire timeline of each transaction including: the preliminary phase, the due diligence phase, the contract phase and the post completion phase. For an overview of forthcoming developments related to environmental issues in transactions (and other areas of environmental law), see Practice Note: Environment—horizon scanner. Environmental issues in transactions Buyers, sellers and funders can face environmental liability risks in corporate and banking transactions. For example, in a corporate share purchase transaction, the purchaser will inherit any environmental liabilities of the target company, including polluter liabilities at previous properties. For more information, see subtopics: • Banking and finance and environmental issues • Corporate transactions and environmental issues, and

A guarantee agreement is a form of contract. Under the general principles of contract law, the death of one of the parties to a contract does not discharge the contract. Therefore, the personal representatives of the deceased party may complete performance and sue for the exchange bargained for and, indeed, they are bound to complete performance at the demand of the other party so far as the assets of the estate will allow. A contract may however, be discharged by frustration where after the formation of the contract an event occurs, which renders further performance of the contract impossible, illegal or something radically different from what was contemplated by the parties when they made the contract. The

The commentary (which generally assumes there are only two parties to a contract) generally draws a distinction between variation (in summary, where the terms of a contract are altered) and a contract for termination (or rescission) (where the contract is terminated). The consequences of a termination by agreement depend on the intention of the parties. For further information see: Termination, rescission and variation: Common Law Series: The Law of Contract [7.4] and Discharge by subsequent agreement: Halsbury's Laws of England [367]. For further information see: Variation: Halsbury's Laws of England [373] and Termination by agreement—Express

Private Client analysis: In Nunn, the taxpayer sold land which previously formed part of his garden to a developer. Before contracts were exchanged, the taxpayer signed an agreement on 2 June 2016, allowing the developer to start development work. The formal sale contract was signed on 7 September 2016. In 2021, HMRC sought to disallow Principal Private Residence relief (PPR), arguing the land was no longer part of the residence once work began. The key issue was therefore whether the disposal date was 7 September 2016, after development started, or 2 June 2016, before it began. The taxpayer claimed the agreement signed on the earlier date constituted a contract or constructive trust, such that PPR relief was available. While the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) found the letter did not demonstrate an intention for immediate disposal nor create a constructive trust, they ruled the land was appropriated to trading stock on 2 June 2016, allowing PPR relief. Written by Jacob Ashforth, solicitor at Burges Salmon.

It is clear from the circumstances set out above that a binding contract for the supply of services has been concluded between the relevant parties. Upon the conclusion of that contract the service provider became obligated to provide the services for the price stated and agreed. Having refused to provide the services that they were obligated to provide (and returned the sums paid) the service provider committed a repudiatory breach of contract. For further information on repudiation, see Practice Note: Repudiation of contract. Although the service provider appears to have committed a repudiatory breach of contract, the contract is not automatically brought to an end. Rather,

This Practice Note considers insurable interest, including insurable interest in construction and liability insurance. It also considers insurable interest in subrogation, co-insurance and double insurance and the Insurable Interest Bill. What is insurable interest? ‘Insurable interest’ refers to a doctrine of insurance contract law that requires the insured to have a relationship with the insured subject-matter that is recognised by law. Broadly speaking, only persons who have some relation to the subject-matter of the insurance contract, by reason of which they would be prejudiced by its loss, or may incur liability in respect thereof, can insure that subject-matter. Conversely, a person who has no such relationship does not have any insurable interest and therefore cannot take out insurance on that subject-matter. The burden rests on the insured to prove an insurable interest exists. The rationales for requiring an insurable interest are that: • it is characteristic of an insurable interest that distinguishes an insurance contract from wagering contracts (the ‘anti-wagering rationale’) • an insurable interest is thought to reduce the moral hazard posed by the insured

This week's edition of Construction weekly highlights includes an announcement from the Joint Contract Tribunal (JCT) of the release dates for its Major Project Construction Contract (MP), Prime Cost Building Contract (PCC) and Constructing Excellence Contract (CE), a £21.7bn funding commitment from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) to launch the UK's first carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) sites, publication of the draft Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance (Amendment) (No 2) Regulations 2024, which propose new reporting obligations in relation to construction contracts, and a consultation launched by the Architects Registration Board (ARB) into a new approach to UK registration for internationally qualified architects.

Although a traditional contract of apprenticeship is not a contract of service, it is a contract of employment under section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) which means that for the purposes of any employment claims arising under ERA 1996, an apprentice who enters into such a contract will be an employee. An apprenticeship agreement, provided it meets the requirements under the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (ASCLA 2009), is to be treated as a contract of employment, and not a contract of apprenticeship. For further information, see Practice Note: Apprenticeships. A lay-off would involve the temporary suspension of the contract, ie the employer would not provide any work for

Offset arrangements arise where an additional investment, payment or other industrial, commercial or economic benefit is offered or required as a condition of an organisation’s tender, normally as part of a public procurement contract. Such arrangements, common in the aerospace and defence industries, may also be called offset agreements, industrial benefit, industrial participation, industrial co-operation, juste retour or counter-trade. An offset arrangement is usually required by purchasing states to compensate high procurement costs, or to enable countries to gain access to advanced technologies or jobs. Many jurisdictions incorporate offset arrangements into their evaluation criteria for bids and give significant weight thereto. Types of offset arrangement—direct or indirect Direct offset A direct offset is where the offset is directly related to the underlying contract, such as the manufacture of a component in the purchasing territory. Indirect offset Indirect offset arises where the supplier or its government is required to purchase or invest in subject-matter unrelated to the underlying agreement. This may be within the same sector or something