Insolvency of your client or customer is bad news, even if, these days, it comes as no surprise.

Section 113 of the Housing Grants, Construction & Regeneration Act 1996 (the 1996 Act) outlaws pay when paid provisions, with one exception. It is permissible for a Contractor to use a pay when paid provision to deny payment of outstanding amounts due to its Sub-contractor where the Client at the top of the supply chain has gone bust. The general consensus is of course that this exception is unfair. It is essentially asking the Sub-contractors to act as insurers of both the main Contractor and Client insolvency.

A late October 2010 case Straw Realisations v Shaftsbury House illustrates the courts’ approach to technical and insolvency-based challenges regarding enforcement of adjudicators’ awards. Given the current spate of contractor insolvencies and popularity of adjudication, any trust facing an adverse adjudicator's decision in favour of its contractor should not pay without due consideration.

The cuts revealed in the Comprehensive Spending Review have not been quite as bad as the construction industry had apparently been expecting (£3.5 billion not as bad). Nevertheless there have still been billions of pounds shaved off various departmental budgets which will affect the construction industry. Where public spending has in the past been a reliable source of income, some companies are inevitably now going to feel the effect of the cuts.

Building services and maintenance contractor Rok was placed into administration in early November. Administrators from PWC are looking for a buyer for the self styled “nation’s local builder”. The move comes just weeks after the administration of its rival Connaught which led to 1,400 redundancies. Rok’s 3,800 employees will be understandably very concerned as will Rok’s customers/employers, many of whom are in the public sector.

Parent company guarantees and performance bonds are typically used in the construction and engineering industries to provide a developer with some security in the event that the contractor breaches the building or engineering contract or, in some circumstances, upon the contractor's insolvency.

In the current economic climate, contractor default is, unfortunately, even more prevalent in the construction and engineering industries, and so the issues surrounding parent company guarantees and performance bonds are very much in focus for developers.

It wasn't so long ago that retention of title (RoT) clauses took somewhat of a backseat. Afterall, deciding who owned what on a construction site given the number of parties involved in any one project was not an easy task. However, given current market conditions and the increase of buyer insolvency, many suppliers are turning their attention back to the clause in an attempt to claw back their goods.

In 2009, almost 3000 construction firms entered into some form of insolvency procedure, leaving many parties owed money by insolvent firms. These debts could be pursued against the third party's insurer under the Third Parties (Rights) Against Insurers Act 1930. However, debt recovery will be made quicker, cheaper and easier once the Third Parties (Rights) Against Insurers Act 2010 is commenced by Parliament.

Armed with an adjudicator’s decision and a TCC enforcement judgment, can a party issue a statutory demand for payment, even if the other party has a genuine and substantial cross claim against the sum awarded? No, said Judge Stephen Davies in Shaw v MFP. Neither the Construction Act nor the Scheme was intended to displace the position under the Insolvency Rules, which give the court discretion to set aside a statutory demand if the debtor appears to have a counterclaim, set-off or cross demand which equals or exceeds the debt in the statutory demand.

An adjudicator can only deal with one dispute under one contract. In Enterprise v McFadden the adjudicator could not therefore deal with a claim to a net balance arising out of mutual dealings on four separate subcontracts (one of which was not even a construction contract) under Rule 4.90 of the Insolvency Rules 1986. Tripartite adjudication is not possible so the adjudication could not cope with a cross claim which would have involved joining assignors.