Under regulation 3(1) of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 (AWR 2010), SI 2010/93, an agency worker is an individual: • supplied by a temporary work agency • to work temporarily for and under the supervision and direction of a hirer • who has a contract with the temporary work agency which is: ◦ a contract of employment with the agency, or ◦ any other contract with the agency to perform work or services personally However, an individual is not an agency worker if: • the contract the individual has with the agency has the effect that the agency's status is that of a client or customer of a profession or business undertaking carried on by the individual, or • there is a contract under which the individual is available to work

The remediation industry has undergone rapid change as a result of wide-ranging influences. UK government commitment to sustainable development, pre-Brexit European laws and an increasing understanding of the need to protect groundwater, have all played their part. Consequently, remedial solutions have become more complex, which presents increased technical and legal issues for stakeholders. Approaches to remediation and risk Less ‘dig and dump’ projects and more sustainable remedial solutions Technically and legally, remediation in the 1980s and 1990s was more straightforward than it is today. Contaminated soils were often excavated and sent to inexpensive landfills and groundwater was only treated where impacts affected an abstraction. Client’s responsibility ended when the contaminated soil went into the landfill. Legal implications for the client were limited to the residual contamination around the margins of the excavation and the quality of the imported material that was used to fill the hole. Less reliance on landfill has driven more innovative, sustainable solutions resulting in an increase in on-site treatment based solutions. If contaminated material is removed from site,

This is an introductory guide to construction law. It is aimed at trainee solicitors and others who are new to construction as a practice area. The guide focuses on the basic principles that apply to construction law and projects. It includes numerous links to other Lexis+® UK Construction material which provides more comprehensive information on the topics covered. Those who are new to construction law are likely to also find the Overviews in each of the topics in Lexis Construction+® UK useful. Where something is not covered by this basic guide, return to the Construction+® UK homepage to browse further content, or use LexisAsk to ask the team a question. For those involved in disputes work, see also Practice Note: Construction disputes—new starter guide. Topics covered • What do construction lawyers do? • Parties involved in a construction project • Structure of a construction project (procurement) • Pricing • Timeline of a construction project • Is there any special legislation? • Building contracts • Consultant appointments • What are collateral warranties and third party rights? • Are there

This Practice Note concerns arbitration proceedings pursuant to the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) Arbitration Rules 2020 (the LCIA Rules) effective 1 October 2020. For practical guidance on arbitration pursuant to the LCIA Rules 2014 and 1998, the previous versions, see the relevant Practice Notes here: LCIA arbitration—overview. For more information on issues that may arise in multi-party arbitration and for comparisons with the arbitration rules of other institutions, see Practice Note: Multi-party and multi-contract arbitration—an introduction. Multi-party arbitration The LCIA Rules make some, but not many, specific provisions for multi-party arbitrations. In this Practice Note we identify stages of an arbitration where the LCIA Rules make relevant provisions. The issues of joinder and consolidation of multiple arbitrations are dealt with separately in Practice Note: LCIA (2020)—tribunal's duties and powers. In summary, an LCIA tribunal has the power to join a third person to an arbitration, given that party and the applicant party's express consent (LCIA, art 22.1(x)), which may be contained in the arbitration agreement or after the commencement of the arbitration. Afterwards, the tribunal

Claims by contractors for loss and expense arising from a disturbance to progress of the works are one of the most debated and contentious areas of construction law, often leading to disputes between the employer and the contractor. This Practice Note explains the basics of loss and expense claims and looks at how the subject is dealt with in the JCT, NEC and FIDIC contracts. For a comparison of the specific provisions in each of these contracts, see Practice Note: Comparison between JCT, NEC and FIDIC time and money events. For a list of the key issues to consider in relation to a claim by a contractor for reimbursement of loss and expense and/or an extension of time, see also Practice Note: Time and money claims. What is loss and expense? Loss and expense is the term often used (most notably, in the JCT contracts) to describe the additional costs incurred by a contractor as a result of disturbance to the regular progress of the works caused by matters either within the employer's control or by breaches of contract

[ON THE HEADED NOTEPAPER OF THE CLAIMANT’S SOLICITORS] Our reference: [insert your file reference for this matter] FAO [Insert name of the debtor’s solicitors] [Address line 1] [Address line 2] [Postcode] [Date] Dear [insert name] [Insert creditor’s name] AND [Insert debtor’s name] LETTER OF CLAIM [We write further to our letter dated [insert date of previous correspondence, if any]]. [As you know, we OR We] act on behalf of [insert client’s full name], whose address is [insert full address]. This is our client’s letter of claim sent in accordance with the Practice Direction Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols of the Civil Procedure Rules (the ‘Practice Direction’), a copy of which is enclosed for your ease of reference. We draw your attention to the final section of this letter which sets out the deadline by which your response is required, and the consequences of failing to respond properly within that time. [Your client should notify their insurer of this claim immediately. We would be grateful if you could kindly confirm the identity of your client’s insurer by return.] 1 Overview and basis of claim 1.1 Our client entered into a contract

This Practice Note examines conflict avoidance in construction and engineering projects. It explains what conflict avoidance means, how the concept has developed in the construction industry, and the role of current industry initiatives including the Conflict Avoidance Coalition, the Conflict Avoidance Pledge and the Conflict Avoidance Process/Panel. It also considers how parties can reduce the risk of conflict through procurement strategy, early collaboration, clear risk allocation and careful contract drafting. The Note reviews commonly used contractual mechanisms, including early warning procedures, tiered dispute resolution clauses, dispute boards operating in an advisory capacity and conflict avoidance panels, and considers the approach taken in NEC, JCT and FIDIC standard forms. It concludes with practical guidance for construction lawyers advising clients on embedding conflict avoidance into contract strategy and project delivery. What is conflict avoidance? Conflict avoidance in construction projects is the deliberate and proactive use of contractual, procedural and behavioural mechanisms to prevent disagreements from escalating into formal disputes. It does not assume that disagreements can be eliminated. Differences of view are common on construction projects,

This Practice Note looks at the key features of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (C(RTP)A 1999), and how third party rights are used in construction contracts. It considers how third party rights are used as an alternative to collateral warranties, the nature of the rights that are actually granted to third parties and how to deal with step-in rights in this context. The C(RTP)A 1999 came into being following the Law Commission Report: ‘Privity of Contract: Contracts for the benefit of Third Parties’ (1996) which reviewed the doctrine of privity of contract and made recommendations for its reform. The C(RTP)A 1999 came into force in November 1999 and applies to contracts entered into on or after 11 May 2000. The C(RTP)A 1999 provides an alternative to collateral warranties and, in a construction context, makes it possible to include drafting in building contracts, consultant’s appointments and sub-contracts which confers rights upon third parties who would otherwise have only been able to acquire such rights by virtue of a collateral

1 Our contract with you 1.1 These Terms of Business (as updated from time to time) apply to all work we do on your behalf. It is an important document—please read and keep it in a safe place for future reference. 1.2 Each time you instruct us on a new matter we will send you a letter confirming your instructions and setting out the scope of the work we will carry out for you, our fees and individual contact details. This is called the Engagement Letter. These Terms of Business should be read together with the Engagement Letter—together they form the contract between us. 1.3 If there is any inconsistency between our Terms of Business and the Engagement Letter, the Engagement Letter will take priority. 1.4 [Although your continuing instructions in this matter will amount to your acceptance of these Terms of Business, we ask that you sign, date and return one copy for our file. OR Your continuing instructions in this matter will amount to your acceptance of these Terms of Business.] 1.5 Unless otherwise agreed, these Terms of Business will apply to all future instructions you give us on this or any other matter.

This Practice Note covers the protections available to shop and betting workers under the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) in relation to Sunday working. It discusses how the law affects different categories of such workers, depending on when they started work and whether their contract requires Sunday working. It also covers: • the duty on employers to issue a written explanatory statement explaining the relevant rights within the first two months of employment • the procedures for opting in and out of Sunday working • claims that may be made where employees are dismissed or subjected to a detriment related to Sunday working It also discusses indirect religious belief discrimination rights, potentially available to all workers in all sectors, that may allow claims under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) to be brought where a worker wishes to avoid working on any particular day of the week for religious reasons. Special rights relating to Sunday working are not found in the core working time legislation (the Working Time Regulations 1998, SI 1998/1833) and, unlike that legislation,

When it comes to protection under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010), instead of defining who has rights by reference to whether or not the individual has 'employee' or 'worker' status, workplace protections, both against prohibited conduct and in relation to equality of terms, are extended to all persons in 'employment' within the meaning of EqA 2010. However, 'employment' in this context has a wider definition than elsewhere, extending to some persons who would be considered workers but not employees under the Employment Rights Act 1996. Under EqA 2010 ‘employment’ means ‘employment under a contract of employment, a contract of apprenticeship, or any other contract personally to do work’. Consequently, those who work in 'employment under a…contract personally to do work' are included within the broad definition of employment for the purpose of prohibited conduct claims. In determining whether a person is covered under the rubric of 'employment under a…contract personally to do work', the following matters are relevant: • the

This Practice Note lists key cases concerning the construction contract payment provisions of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA 1996) as amended by the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. For further guidance, see Practice Notes: Interim payments in construction contracts and Interim payments in construction contracts. In relation to interim payments, see also Practice Note: Interim payments in construction contracts. CAUTION: From December 2014 (when judgment was handed down in ISG v Seevic) up until February 2018 (when judgment was handed down by the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) in Grove v S&T), payment cases proceeded on the basis that, where a paying party failed to give a payment or pay less notice in relation to an interim payment, it was deemed to have agreed to the amount stated in the payee’s payment application/default payment notice. Accordingly, in relation to the relevant interim payment, the paying party could not then challenge the ‘true value’ of the works in adjudication (or otherwise). Following Grove v S&T, which has