The Welsh Government has announced a Wales interim measures alarm grant to support leaseholders facing the cost of alarm systems required for simultaneous evacuation policies while remediation work is carried out. The Cabinet Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning, Siân Gwenllian MS, also confirmed progress in implementing the Building Safety (Wales) Act 2026, which strengthens safety and accountability requirements for multi-occupied residential buildings, introduces competence requirements for fire risk assessors and enables applications to the residential property tribunal for remediation and remediation contribution orders. Regulations supporting these orders were consulted on earlier in September 2026 and are intended to be laid before the Christmas recess, while registration of category 1 buildings is expected to begin in December 2027. The Welsh Government stated that more than a quarter of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry recommendations have been implemented in Wales and that it expects this proportion to double by the end of 2026. The Cabinet Minister also told developers signed to the Welsh Government remediation contract that they must meet their obligations, with enforcement action to be considered where they fail to do so.

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) refused an urgent pre-action application by TTSJV WLL and its parent companies (the applicants) for orders requiring BapCo Refining BSC (Closed) (the defendant) to suspend its USD484 million demand under an on-demand performance guarantee, and restraining further demands under either the performance guarantee or a retention bond, pending the appointment of and relief from an LCIA emergency arbitrator. The TCC had jurisdiction to consider the application under section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996 because there was a real prospect that payment would be made before an emergency arbitrator could be appointed and act effectively. However, the autonomy principle applicable to on-demand instruments meant that the applicants had to establish clearly that the underlying contract prohibited BapCo from making the call. It was insufficient merely to demonstrate seriously or strongly arguable contractual dispute. The applicants failed to meet that threshold: their arguments based on the penalty doctrine, formal non-compliance and the contention that the liquidated damages were not due and payable were rejected, and their argument concerning the retention bond wa s abandoned.

Pensions analysis: The claimant, a part-time reservist, brought a complaint under the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 alleging he had been treated less favourably than a full-time regular soldier as respects (a) for pension purposes, his service prior to 1 April 2015 and (b) his daily rate of pay. The Employment Tribunal found in the claimant’s favour. The Advocate-General for Scotland appealed, contending that the claimant was not a ‘worker’ within the Regulations, his daily rate of pay did not constitute less favourable treatment and his treatment as respects pay and prior service was not on the ground that he was a part-time worker. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) dismissed the appeal, holding that the tribunal below had not erred in law. The case applies the recognised principles for determining whether a person without an employment contract is a ‘worker’ to the new context of the armed forces. It is potentially relevant to all armed forces reservists. Written by Elizabeth Ovey, barrister at Radcliffe Chambers.

Dispute Resolution analysis: This case deals with make-or-break procedural matters at the outset of a claim. The issues considered involve defective service of the claim form, and the applications that followed, ie seeking to contest jurisdiction under CPR 11 (though doing so out of time) and seeking to set aside default judgment under CPR 13. The case also examines limitation issues in a contract for services and the losses that can be claimed where the limitation date falls within the latter stages of a project. The claim form was deemed to not be adequately served where it was sent directly to the defendants rather than their solicitors who, although no longer acting, had previously agreed to accept service. The court also determined the outcome of applications under CPR 13 to set aside a default judgment, ultimately finding that the defendants had a reasonable prospect of successfully defending the claim looking at limitation issues and the substantive merits. An application under CPR 11 relating to the defective service was not made in time ie, within 14 days of an acknowledgement of service (AoS) indicating that a jurisdiction challenge would be made. The judge examined the case law on whether their default judgment application could be treated as being made under CPR 11. Written by Rebecca Lawrence, senior associate/PSL in Commercial Litigation at Trowers & Hamlins LLP.

Arbitration analysis: The Commercial Court upheld a section 67 challenge under the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) and set aside an ICC tribunal’s partial award on jurisdiction. Bryan J held that the tribunal had impermissibly adopted a ‘pick and mix’ approach to conflicting arbitration clauses in a suite of contractual documents, wrongly overriding the agreed order of precedence. The case is a rare example of a successful jurisdictional challenge and reinforces the limits of arbitral discretion when construing composite contracts. The judgment also clarifies the approach under AA 1996, s 73, holding that a party will not lose its right to object to jurisdiction where timely and consistent protest is maintained. Finally, the court refused relief from sanctions for late acknowledgment of service—emphasising the seriousness of procedural defaults in arbitration claims, though the defendant was permitted to participate de bene esse. This is a valuable judgment for practitioners navigating jurisdictional objections in composite contract settings and reinforces the English courts’ commitment to procedural discipline in arbitration claims. Written by Can Yeğinsu, barrister at 3 Verulam Buildings.

This week's edition of Energy weekly highlights includes an update from DESNZ on the Review of Electricity Market Arrangements (REMA), confirming the decision to proceed with a reformed national pricing system and not introducing zonal pricing. We have two News Analyses on the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ)'s new supplementary guidance for assessing the effects of downstream scope 3 emissions on climate from offshore oil and gas projects, and the landmark civil climate change court ruling in Luciano Lliuya v RWE AG (2015) Case No 2 O 285/15. In addition this week, the National Electricity System Operator (NESO) has opened its evidence submission window for the one-off 'Gate 2 to Whole Queue' exercise following the TMO4+ grid connections reforms, and DESNZ has published a new onshore wind strategy. We also cover several announcements from Ofgem, including the sanctioning Octopus Energy to pay approximately £1.5m in redress to former prepayment meter customers for failing to issue final bills within six weeks of a supplier transfer or contract termination, as required under Standard Licensing Condition 27.17 (SLC 27.17).

Property Disputes analysis: Land was sold at an auction. An associated overage liability was not mentioned in the catalogue or at the auction. It was, however, apparent from a copy of the title in a legal pack available to bidders. The sale did not complete because the purchaser discovered about the overage just after the auction. The issue was whether the vendor had failed to disclose a defect in title which entitled the purchaser to rescind the contract. The appeal judge held that the vendor had indeed breached its duty to disclose defects in title. Including the information in the legal pack was not good enough. Thus, the purchaser could rescind. The case raises important questions as to how far vendors must go to disclose defects on title. It raises the possibility that a transparent ‘cards on the table’ approach, involving revealing all adverse rights, covenants etc affecting land, may be required if vendors are to comply with their disclosure duty. Written by Martin Dray, barrister at Falcon Chambers.

Restructuring and Insolvency analysis: The High Court held that the joint administrators of a collapsed peer-to-peer lending company, FundingSecure Ltd, were not permitted to pay the company five percent of any security asset realisation on defaulting loans before monies were repaid to lenders (investors). This case provides a summary of the principles of contractual construction and an insight into judicial approach to arguments based on commercial common sense. In construing the contract, the judge held that internal ambiguities were to be read against the company, as was the fact that the investors’ interpretation led to a sensible outcome which fit better with the commercial reality of the situation as reflected by the parties’ respective abilities to assess the risks involved in their dealings. This result was crucial to thousands of investors who stood to lose millions where FundingSecure Ltd had overvalued the security on their loans meaning there was not enough money to pay back investors. It will also be relevant to other similarly failed schemes. Written by Mo Haque QC, partner at CANDEY, who together with other lawyers at CANDEY acted for the investors.

The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) has selected Rolls-Royce SMR Ltd as the preferred bidder to partner with Great British Energy - Nuclear (GBE-N) to develop the UK’s first small modular reactors. GBE-N has been renamed from Great British Nuclear, and will operate as an allied company to GBE. Subject to final government approvals and contract signature, Rolls-Royce SMR will enter into a strategic technology development partnership with GBE-N. GBE-N also plans to designate a site later in 2025 and connect projects to the grid in the mid-2030s. This project is expected to create up to 3,000 new skilled jobs and deliver clean, homegrown energy to approximately three million homes. This announcement follows a two-year competitive procurement process that began in July 2023. Rolls-Royce SMR is currently in the final stage of assessment by the UK nuclear industry’s independent regulators. Additionally, the government has pledged over £2.5bn for the overall small modular reactor programme during this Spending Review period.

This week's edition of Construction weekly highlights includes the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s (MHCLG’s) response to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 report, an analysis of the key details of the Procurement Act 2023 (PA 2023), guidance from the Construction Leadership Council (CLC) on recurring evaluation-related challenges in public sector procurement, the Arbitration Act 2025, a case where the US Court of Appeals considered the outcome where the designated arbitration forum (DIFC-LCIA) ceased to exist (Baker v Dynamic), publication of the 181st Practice Direction (PD), a case where the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) held that restrictions in a project management appointment meant that a purported assignee and beneficiary of a trust relating to claims in relation to that appointment had no title to bring the claims (Goldkorn v MPA), a case where the Privy Council considered the meaning of ‘reasonably incurred’ costs and liabilities in the context of termination for convenience under the FIDIC forms of contract (WSA of Trinidad and Tobago v Waterworks), and publication of the TCC’s 2023–2024 annual report.

Arbitration analysis: this case involved a challenge before the Hong Kong High Court on the enforcement of an award on two grounds. The first is to challenge the validity of an optional arbitration agreement giving one party (the lender) the option to commence arbitration against the other (the borrower). The court held that there was a valid arbitration agreement. The court explained that once the lender exercised its option by commencing arbitration, an arbitration agreement came into existence and the borrower was compelled to follow the lender’s choice. The challenge, however, succeeded on the ground that the notice of arbitration was invalidly served, in that the notice was recorded in the award to have been sent to an email address (‘xyz@chinat.hk’) that was different to the borrower’s email address as stated in the relevant contract (‘xyz@china.hk’). This underscores the importance of proper service and illustrates the risk to enforcement if there is any irregularity with service on the face of the award. Written by Joanne Lau, partner and Harrison Chung, associate at Allen & Overy.

An agreement between Project Co and the Construction Contractor or FM Contractor or their parent company which is outside the Construction Contract or FM Contract and is aimed at circumventing the prohibition on 'pay when paid' under Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 as amended by the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.