Free Delivery for UK Orders
14 Day Money Back Guarantee
Trusted and Secure

Manual of Construction Agreements Set

A comprehensive guide to the law and practice governing construction contracts, with a focus on the major standard form agreements.
In Stock
ISBN/ISSN: 9780853082286

Product description

Why should you subscribe to Manual of Construction Agreements

The Manual of Construction Agreements is a comprehensive guide to the law and practice governing construction contracts, with a focus on the major standard form agreements. Originally written by Richard Cockram, one of the country's leading construction lawyers, it includes a comprehensive bank of expertly drafted amendments to the standard form agreements and a suite of precedents, together with guidance and drafting notes.

Construction drafting is a central part of commercial property transactions, raising complex issues of law, interpretation and procedure. The key to addressing these issues lies in having rapid access to draft forms of agreement and specialist expertise based on a sound understanding of industry practice, case-law and current legislation.

Benefits of the service include:

  • An exhaustive suite of over 100 expertly drafted and comprehensively annotated forms and precedents, written from the perspective of end-users
  • A 650-page statement of relevant law and practice - including detailed commentary on the principal industry-standard forms
  • Updated twice a year to cover relevant developments in construction law and practice
  • An introduction to contractual arrangements relating to construction procurement, the appointment of design consultants and related matters
  • In-depth analysis of the relevant areas of law that have been the subject of recent developments in the form of new legislation or reported cases, or in which certain difficult problems remain to be resolved
  • A new chapter and accompanying forms and precedents covering the FIDIC contracts, which are the most widely used forms for contracts internationally for the construction, plant and design industries.

Featured authors

Table of contents

Issue 30 November 2019

In this issue, we have made update amendments to reflect the recent Court of Appeal judgment in M Davenport Builders Ltd v Greer where the court considered the unanswered issues in Grove Developments Ltd v S&T (UK) Ltd with respect to so-called ‘smash and grab’ adjudications: can a payer even commence a true-value adjudication without having paid first? If so, can he later rely on the decision in the true-value adjudication without having paid first? The court held that an employer who is subject to an immediate obligation to discharge the order of an adjudicator based upon the failure of the employer to serve either a payment notice or a pay less notice must discharge that immediate obligation before he will be entitled to rely on a subsequent decision in a true-value adjudication. We also look at Bennett (Construction) Ltd v CMC MBS Ltd where, while obiter, the Court of Appeal noted that the right replacement option when there was a conflict between the provisions of the Construction Act and the payments in a construction contract was one that ‘does the least violence to the agreement between the parties’ rather than wholesale replacement.

Moving away from statutory adjudication to arbitration, we consider several cases looking at s 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 challenging an award on the grounds of serious irregularity. In Celtic Bioenergy Ltd v Knowles Ltd, the court set aside an arbitration award on the grounds that one party had deliberately failed to draw to the attention of the arbitrator correspondence that was adverse to that party’s case. In P (A Company Incorporated in County A) v D (A Company Incorporated in Country B) P said that the arbitrators did not ‘act fairly and impartially as between the parties, giving each party a reasonable opportunity of putting his case and dealing with that of his opponent’, because in relation to an important point there was no cross-examination of a vital witness by counsel for D. It was accepted that s 68 imposes a high hurdle but it was contended that this case was an ‘extreme’ one. The application was successful. In contrast, in K v S, the court stated that the tribunal was plainly right and rejected the s 68 application. K v S was a challenge of a procedural decision and thus sought to violate the ‘procedural judgment rule’ (which is that municipal courts do not normally second guess a tribunal’s exercise of its procedural judgment).

In the wider context of ADR, we look at multi-tier dispute resolution systems. In Ohpen Operations UK Ltd v Invesco Fund Managers Ltd, the court had to consider here whether the claim had been issued in breach of a contractually agreed tiered dispute resolution procedure and, if so, whether the proceedings should be stayed, pending referral of the dispute to mediation. The court collated and updated principles for where a party seeks to enforce an ADR provision.

We have updated the sections dealing with supervision. In Herons Court, the Lessees and Management Company of v Heronslea Ltd, the Court of Appeal had to decide whether approved inspectors owe a duty under s 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 in the performance of their statutory function under Part II of the Building Act 1984, which involves inspection and certification in order to ensure compliance with building regulations. The Court of Appeal considered that the approved inspector has no statutory power to influence the design or construction of a building in any way, save to stipulate that it must comply with the law. In certifying, or refusing to certify, plans and works, the approved inspector is not engaged in the positive role of the provision or creation of the relevant building, but performs the essentially negative regulatory role of checking for compliance against prescribed criteria.

We have also made updates dealing with substantive contract law; making a compliant demand under an on-demand bond or guarantee; and the impact of ‘Building information modelling (BIM) according to the ISO 19650 series’. We will continue to monitor this important area and issue updates accordingly.

In Part B, we have included a new Form, Form B60AC in Section 4. This Form contains amendments to the NEC4 Engineering and Construction Short Contract 2017. Section A3 of Part A has been expanded to include an overview of the Short Contract, including a comparison of the main differences between the Short Contract and the NEC4 Engineering and Construction Contract. It has also been updated with regard to the January 2019 amendments to the NEC4 suite of contracts and to refer to the NEC4 Alliance Contract.

Part A Law and Practice

  • The Nature of Construction Contracts
  • The JCT Contracts
  • Non-JCT Construction Contracts
  • Standard Form Consultants' Appointments
  • Collateral Warranties and Third Party Rights
  • Guarantee Bonds and Parent Company Guarantees
  • Insurance
  • Assignment
  • Novation
  • Letters of Intent
  • The CDM Regulations
  • Relevant Legislation
  • Dispute Resolution: Litigation and Arbitration
  • Dispute Resolution: Adjudication, Expert Determination and ADR
  • The Form and Content of Deeds and Documents
  • The Execution of Deeds and Other Documents

Part B Forms

  • Consultants' Appointments
  • Amendments to JCT Contracts
  • Amendments to ICE Contracts
  • Amendments to NEC/ECC Contract
  • Management Contracting
  • Collateral Warranties
  • Novations
  • Letters of Intent
  • Surety Documents
  • Miscellaneous