Legal terms explained: Head office overheads and profit claims

When projects overrun, the delay can increase the cost to the contractor of working on the project. There are various heads of loss that a contractor may want to claim, but two highly contentious heads of loss are head office overheads (also known as off-site overheads) and loss of profit.

To read more of this and every other news story on this site, please log in with your Construction Law membership account details. If you don't have an account, you can get free access to the news on this site and receive a free newsletter on Fridays by creating a Newsletter account. See the panel to the right.

Subscribers to the printed magazine get access to the entire Construction law website.

Restoring arbitration for the 21st Century

Guest editor Martin Burns, Head of ADR Research and Development at RICS, sees a renewed appetite for arbitration, as a middle ground between long drawn out litigation and high speed adjudication. An improved version of what went before won’t be enough to cope with modern demands so new ground must be broken, he argues.

Read more

State of play table 214

This table, prepared by Clyde & Co, provides a regularly amended guide to new and proposed legislation that will affect the construction industry. In addition to EU Directives and UK legislation, the table includes notes highlighting discussion papers issued by both government and non-government organisations, and commentary on the latest developments.

This story is only available to subscribers to the printed edition of Construction Law. If you have a subscription please log in to read the rest of the story.

The Construction Supply Chain Payment Charter

The Construction Leadership Council (CLC) has relaunched its Construction Supply Chain Payment Charter (CSCPC). The Charter was first launched in 2014 and contains 11 non-binding commitments to which companies, operating within the construction industry, can attest.

This story is only available to subscribers to the printed edition of Construction Law. If you have a subscription please log in to read the rest of the story.

Reports from the courts

Our regular reports of the court cases of most interest to construction from Andrew Croft and Simii Sivapalan of Beale & Company Solicitors LLP focuses on a decision highlighting that reservations about an expert’s jurisdiction must be raised at the outset of any dispute; and another highlighting that exclusions to agreements for extensions of time should be expressly set out.

This story is only available to subscribers to the printed edition of Construction Law. If you have a subscription please log in to read the rest of the story.

Definitions list needed

Contracts monitor Michael Phipps, Principal of Thurston Consultants, highlights inconsistent use of terminology in RIBA’s Concise Building Contract 2014. Time may be wasted checking for this, he warns.

This story is only available to subscribers to the printed edition of Construction Law. If you have a subscription please log in to read the rest of the story.

Beware Brexit unknown unknowns

Ed Freeman of Clyde & Co looks at the implications of Brexit for construction law, of which several are important for the industry’s contracts. Amid the current uncertainty parties need to ask who will shoulder the risk of the unknown unknowns?

This story is only available to subscribers to the printed edition of Construction Law. If you have a subscription please log in to read the rest of the story.

‘Smash and grab’ adjudications

David Arnott and Christopher Duff of Brodies LLP analyse the game-changing impact of Construction Act amendments on adjudication, detailing the options available to paying parties on the losing side of ‘smash and grab’ actions.

This story is only available to subscribers to the printed edition of Construction Law. If you have a subscription please log in to read the rest of the story.

Contractors’ design obligations

Jennifer Jones of Atkin Chambers examines a recent case affecting contractors’ design obligations that highlights tension between implied obligations and the conventional approach which looks purely at express design obligations contained within the contract.

This story is only available to subscribers to the printed edition of Construction Law. If you have a subscription please log in to read the rest of the story.

Digital delivery – the legal implications

Digitising construction will demand a joined up legal, commercial and technical approach, say Andrew Croft and Adam Ifield of Beale & Company Solicitors LLP in this overview of the legal implications of new, digital ways of working. Responsibilities and roles are likely to change quickly, they warn.

This story is only available to subscribers to the printed edition of Construction Law. If you have a subscription please log in to read the rest of the story.

+ More