The Security Industry Authority (SIA) has reported that Adewale Balogun has been sentenced after investigators identified that he had used a false instrument and possessed a false identity document while attempting to work as a licensed security operative at two separate events. The SIA has said that, by law, security operatives working under contract must hold and display a valid SIA licence. Balogun pleaded guilty to all charges at Bolton Crown Court on 31 July 2023 and was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment for using a false instrument, contrary to section 3 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, three months’ imprisonment for fraud by false representation, contrary to section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006, and three months’ imprisonment for possession of a false identity document, contrary to section 6 of the Identity Documents Act 2010. The SIA has said that these sentences were ordered to run concurrently and were suspended for a period of 18 months, with a requirement of 150 hours of unpaid work to be undertaken. Balogun was also ordered to pay prosecution costs of £500 and now holds a criminal record.

The Low Carbon Contracts Company (LCCC) has published its Five-Year Strategy for 2026/27 to 2030/31, setting out four strategic priorities: delivery, trust, value and people. Under its delivery priority, the LCCC plans to move from managing contracts and payments for 4 live schemes to potentially around 20 by 2031, while maintaining timely and accurate contract and payment delivery and supporting the flexible implementation of new schemes. The strategy notes that, following Contracts for Difference (CfD) Allocation Round 7, the LCCC’s CfD portfolio has reached more than 550 contracts, representing approximately 50 GW of capacity, of which more than 10 GW is operational. Under its trust priority, the LCCC aims to build long-term stakeholder relationships, align governance with government priorities and achieve a stakeholder satisfaction score of over 80%. Under its value priority, the LCCC will focus on accurate levy setting and digital innovation, including investment in artificial intelligence and settlements and forecasting systems across schemes. Under its people priority, the LCCC aims to strengthen workforce capabilities and culture.

This week's edition of Construction weekly highlights includes Royal Assent of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, the government’s consultation on major reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework, the new infrastructure consent regime under the Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024 coming into force, together with a second commencement order bringing further powers into effect from March 2026, analysis of emerging trends in international construction arbitration focussing on renewables and energy transition projects, a case from the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) Court of Appeal confirming its mandatory interim relief powers prevail over LCIA Rules, a Technology and Construction Court (TCC) decision holding that an expert’s determination that there had been a variation based largely on the parties conduct was not binding because the contract contained a no-oral modification clause (GSY v Gladstone), Building Safety (Wales) Bill progressing to Stage 2 committee consideration, the Construction Industry Council (CIC)’s feedback from the UK Net Zero Carbon Buildings Standard Pilot informing Version 1, publication of the World Development Report 2025, and the Office for National Statistics (ONS)’s correction of construction output statistics for public housing new work from January 2022 onwards.

Remoteness is a principle used to establish an award of damages in tort. The test is set out in the case of Hadley v Baxendale [1843-60] All ER Rep 461. A claimant cannot recover damages in respect of a loss that is too remote a consequence of the defendant’s breach of contract.

Commercial analysis: The appellant played an Instant Win Game (a game of chance whose outcome is predetermined by at the point of purchase) in which at the end of the game, due to a software error, two sets of matched numbers were displayed, one with a £10 prize and one with a £1m prize. The predetermined outcome of the game was a win of £10. The appellant claimed a prize of £1m and sought summary judgment on the claim, arguing that terms on which the defendant relied were not incorporated into the contract and/or were unfair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Mr Justice Jay dismissed her application and she appealed the decision. The Court of Appeal held that, whether or not the appellant had actually read the terms, the defendant had done what was reasonably sufficient to bring the terms to the appellant’s attention by making them available via hyperlinks and drop-down menus, that the terms were not onerous or unusual, and that on a true construction of the terms, the appellant had not won £1m. The appeal and claim were dismissed. Written by Sophie Ashcroft (partner) and Amba Griffin-Booth (senior associate) of Browne Jacobson LLP who led the defence of the claim against Camelot, supported by counsel, Philip Hinks, from 3VB Chambers.

This week's edition of Construction weekly highlights includes a case in which the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) considered whether a sub-contractor’s payment application was valid (RGB v TAWE Drylining), a case in which the Hong Kong Court of Appeal construed the requirements for notifying claims under a construction contract (Maeda v Bauer), a case in which the TCC struck out proceedings on the basis that they were an abuse of process (Re Fundão Dam Disaster), details of the House of Lords’ consideration of the Fire Safety Bill at report stage, the publication by HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) of the responses to its consultation ‘Tackling Construction Industry Scheme Abuse’, the release of a report by the Green Alliance on what infrastructure the UK needs to get on track for ‘net zero’, and the publication of guidance from the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) on top actions that businesses in the construction sector must take to prepare for the end of the Brexit transition period.

This week’s edition of Construction weekly highlights includes Building Safety Regulator (BSR) proposals to introduce a more proportionate approach to Building Assessment Certificates (BACs) for higher-risk buildings (HRBs), Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) consultation on emergency repairs under the higher-risk building regime and its response to the single construction regulator consultation, and an extension to the existing cladding safety scheme to buildings under 11 metres with serious fire safety risks, Technology and Construction Court (TCC) guidance on the conclusivity of Final Statements under the Joint Contracts Tribunal (JCT) Design and Build Contract 2016 (Oakland v Stepnell), an Outer House decision holding that claims arising from allegedly defective cladding and cavity barrier designs had prescribed under the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 (PL(S)A 1973), as amended (Ogilvie Construction v M1 RE Glasgow), Court of Appeal guidance from Trinidad and Tobago on the limits of contractual exclusion of judicial supervision of arbitral awards (Construtora OAS v National Infrastructure Development Company), the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority’s (NISTA) Major Projects Annual Report 2025–26 on delivery of the Government Major Projects Portfolio, updated Procurement Policy Note (PPN) 022 introducing new UK steel transparency requirements, and publication of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) minutes for June 2026.

EU Law analysis: On 21 December 2021, the Court of Justice issued a preliminary ruling in respect of a group of cases brought under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 and held, that a flight must be regarded as having been ‘cancelled’ where the operating air carrier brings departure time forward by more than one hour. Further findings included that compensation may be payable under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 even if a passenger has no direct contract of carriage with the operating air carrier if it was booked via a tour operator on condition that the passenger believes that a reservation has been received and had proof of such perceived reservation from the tour operator. As such, a claim for compensation may be brought against the operating air carrier even if the reservation has not been forwarded to that carrier or confirmed in its reservation system, and any attempt to reduce such compensation is contrary to the Regulation (EC) No 261/2004. Written by Carol Anderson, solicitor, and Global Aviation professional support lawyer at Clyde & Co LLP (London).

Dispute Resolution analysis: In this case, the appellant defendants, Grain House International, and its CEO, Elhachmi Boutgueray, had flouted various court orders enforcing payment of a contract debt. At first instance, Mrs Justice Cockerill had found both the defendants liable on several grounds of contempt, and imposed a fine of £75,000 against the company while sentencing Mr Boutgueray to committal for one year. The defendants appealed all the judge’s findings of contempt on all counts. The appellants had not observed multiple court orders and the Court of Appeal was required to evaluate the correct approach to be taken in several discrete areas of the law on contempt of court. This included the correct penalties for unwarranted redaction of documents (Contempt 1), partial failure to disclose (Contempt 2), non-disclosure of the equitable ownership of property (Contempt 3), breach of a worldwide freezing order (Contempt 4) and personal liability of directors for their company’s civil contempt (Contempt 5). Written by Natalie Todd, and Samuel Peters, partners of Cooke, Young & Keidan LLP.

This edition of Employment weekly highlights includes: (1) key employment and immigration announcements in the Labour and Green Party manifestos, (2) an EAT judgment on an NHS Trust justifying the continuation of a consultant surgeon’s fixed-term contract after four years, (4) an EAT decision on whether a claimant, who was employed by the British Council in the UAE, could bring claims in the employment tribunal in Great Britain, (4) an employment tribunal decision that a bakery failed to make reasonable adjustments for a blind employee, (5) analysis by Adam Richardson, barrister at 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square, of a High Court judgment about the defence of consent to defamation within workplace procedures, (6) an EAT judgment about the fairness of a redundancy process involving an employee being put in a ‘pool of one’, (7) a Council of the EU proposal for an EU Talent Pool, (8) Scottish regulations making additions to the listed authorities that have specific duties in relation to the public sector equality duty, (9) the IRLR Highlights for July 2024, (10) dates for your diary, (11) updates to our case and legislation trackers and our horizon scanner, and (12) a new Q&A.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The defendant’s application to strike out and/or for reverse summary judgment on the claimant financial services firm’s claims for breach of contract and/or unjust enrichment was refused. The judge held that there was a real prospect of success on each claim or some other compelling reason for the case to go to trial. There was also a real prospect of Matrix Receivables Ltd (MRL) overcoming the abuse of process arguments raised in terms of the alleged collateral attack on an earlier decision in which it was not a party. The fact that the trial bundle from a previous action had been wrongly reviewed by MRL’s solicitors in breach of CPR 31.22 was also not a reason to strike out the claim as that would be disproportionate where the breach was not deliberate and there had been no specific or tangible misuse of the documents. Practical steps could be taken to remedy such breach and MRL did not need retrospective permission to rely on those documents. Written by Pippa Manby, barrister at 4 New Square Chambers.

The government has added a new clause to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which would extend the application of the existing right to work scheme to cover alternative working arrangements that have previously fallen outside its scope. Currently, the statutory framework under the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 requires right to work checks only for individuals engaged as employees under conventional contracts, if the employer is to obtain a statutory excuse against a civil penalty where a worker is subsequently found to lack the requisite immigration permission. The new clause would extend the need for checks to employers and businesses which engage individuals to undertake work for third parties through non-traditional contracting methods: those operating under a worker’s contract, as individual subcontractors, and through online matching platforms. This measure would effectively broaden the remit of the existing checks to catch forms of engagement prevalent in the gig economy, where many workers are self-employed or operate under casual, zero-hours, or temporary arrangements.