Last year we reported on a decision of the Scottish Court of Session which suggested that greater leniency may apply to the interpretation of performance bonds in Scotland than in England (see our earlier Law-Now here). A further decision from the Court of Session issued last month would appear to support this trend.

Fife Council v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance plc

A recent Scottish Inner House decision provides an overview of the approach to be taken in Scotland to interpreting performance bonds. The decision notes that the degree of compliance required when making a call may be strict, or not so strict, depending on the construction of the bond. The court’s decision also refers to the commercial purpose of the bond being key and may suggest that a more lenient approach to performance bonds is to apply in Scotland.

It is common knowledge to many that parties to a construction contract have the right to adjudicate at any time. This is a right implied by statute and a right that cannot be fettered. However, it seems the limits of such a right are now somewhat more nuanced. In the recent case of Michael J. Lonsdale (Electrical) Limited v Bresco Electrical Services Limited (in Liquidation) [2018] EWHC 2043 Fraser J has considered how the Insolvency Rules and Adjudication work together and what this means for the right to adjudicate at any time.

This article was first published in Building Magazine, Issue 10, 10 March 2017.

Does an adjudication enforcement trump an insolvency moratorium? A recent case in the TCC has provided clear guidance on the issue.

The motivation for the recent insolvency law reforms is to give insolvent companies breathing space to try to reorganise their affairs and allow viable businesses to continue to trade

With the threat of increased insolvencies as an effect of the COVID-19 pandemic remaining very real, the construction sector needs to be aware of the impact of changes to insolvency laws.

Changes to insolvency laws in the UK, Australia and Singapore may affect how parties deal with the termination of construction contracts where one party to the agreement is insolvent.

Recent insolvency law reforms in the UK, Singapore and Australia impact upon the ability of a party to a construction contract to terminate it due to the other party's insolvency.

Background

A Singaporean construction company in liquidation has successfully sued one of its former directors for failing to act in the best interests of the company, highlighting the importance of directors being aware of, and protecting against, potential personal liability for breach of duty.

Directors’ liability – the risk

The High Court of England & Wales considered, in respect of the delayed completion of a solar project, the appropriate end date for liquidated damages under a terminated construction contract.

It is usual and standard for a construction contract to contain a liquidated damages clause. It is also common for a termination clause to be included and it is not unusual for it to be exercised. Strangely, however, it is not clear under English law how these two concepts interact.

In a noteworthy decision to participants in the energy industry, the High Court of England & Wales examined what constitutes a valid liquidated damages clause in the event of delayed completion of a solar project. And last week in Singapore, the High Court considered the enforceability of liquidated damages provisions on termination of power purchase agreements.

Following the substantial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on global trade and business operations in the UAE, the Government of the UAE has taken measures to protect businesses facing financial difficulty. Among these measures has been a mechanism that provides relief to businesses in financial distress because of the pandemic within the framework of the UAE Federal Bankruptcy Law No. 9 of 2016 (the Bankruptcy Law).