Posted: April 1st, 2015

construction law

construction law

Order Description

Question of the course work

In Ferson Contractors Ltd v Levolux AT Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 11, the Court of Appeal stated that ‘the character of s.108 Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 was ‘draconian’ (‘harsh, severe, cruel’). The process is swift and an effective means of resolving disputes and, where the adjudicator is wrong, the matter can be corrected in subsequent arbitration or litigation. According to HHJ Coulson QC’s description in Harlow & Milner Ltd v Mrs Linda Teasdale [2006] EWHC 1708 (TCC), this can lead to ‘clear but sometimes harsh consequences’.

Is this assessment of the introduction of adjudication still correct?

Word Count: 2500 words

referencing style:OSCOLA
Because is a law assignment I am not sure about the number of sources specialy because we have to use other cases as well to prove our point.
We have to mention Local democracy, economic development and construction Act 2009 (LDEDC Act) and s.108 Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA 1996) and Latham report

Assignment guidance

You are asked to look at the JCT contract only, but there may be case law and or legislation which effects the way the clauses in the contract work. If that is the case, you will need to refer to them.
You only need to reference the clauses from the contract and not the contract itsefl – the questions asks you to consider the JCT contract, so if you refer to a clause, the marker will know it is from the JCT contract referenced in the question. Remember there are no marks for quoting the clause – you must try to explain it in your own words. Mention the clause number and what it says & how it works, in your own words. referencing the clauses can be done two ways, either by using the word ‘clause’ and then the number in the text of your sentence which explains the effects of the clause or you may simply explain the effects and then pop the clause no. in brackets at the end.
EG:
Clause 12.17.1 makes is clear that the main contractor’s liability goes no further than it would for an architect (or other professional) holding themselves out to be competent to take on the design
Or
The main contractor’s liability goes no further than it would for an architect (or other professional) holding themselves out to be competent to take on the design (Cl 2.17.1).
Finally, whenever a question asks your to advise someone or to say what the law on a particular aspect is, then you must always consider both sides of any argument. If I went to a lawyer for advice and they only told me my side of the argument, but didn’t tell me what the other party may argue in response, I wouldn’t know the full picture. What I really want to know is where I stand: which bits of the law are in my favour and which bits may go against me. That way, I know whether or not I want to take the risk of suing.