Background

In 2018 Midas Construction Limited (In Liquidation) (“Midas”) entered into a contract based on the JCT Design and Build Sub-Contract 2011(“the Contract”) with Harmsworth Pension Funds Trustees Limited (“Harmsworth”). Midas was engaged as Harmsworth’s contractor to carry out "The design and construction of the Shell and Core, Fit Out and External Works of a new build student residential, private residential, and affordable housing development" ("the Works").

On 21 May 2025 The UK Supreme Court delivered a significant ruling in URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2025] UKSC 21, providing clarification on developers’ rights to recover remedial costs and the extended application of the Building Safety Act 2022.

In the current financial climate, development projects are commencing under increasingly tight budgets, with contractors typically accepting less risk under much more restrictive scopes. On hotel development projects, this adds further pressure to projects already experiencing issues such as material and labour shortages, rising operational costs, difficulties obtaining funding, and evolving guest expectations. 

A court has recently confirmed an Adjudicator’s Decision that WhatsApp messages constituted a construction contract, and invoices submitted with reference to them were therefore valid payment notices. 

In Placefirst Construction Ltd v CAR Construction (North East) Ltd, the Technology and Construction Court (“TCC”) declined to enforce an adjudicator’s decision that a contractor had failed to issue a valid payment notice or pay less notice under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996.

In Grain Communications Limited v Shepherd Groundworks Ltd the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) decided that an employer’s decision to postpone works without providing a new commencement date was a valid exercise of its contractual right to instruct a variation and was not a breach of contract that entitled the contractor to damages. 

In Darcliffe Homes Ltd v Glanville Consultants and another, the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) held that there was an insufficient link between negligent advice in a consultant’s ground condition report and a property developer’s loss.

In BDW Trading Ltd (“BDW”) v Ardmore Construction Ltd (“Ardmore”), the Technology and Construction Court (“TCC”) recently determined that, by virtue of The Building Safety Act 2022 (“BSA 2022”), an adjudicator appointed under a construction contract had jurisdiction to determine a claim for defects under the Defective Premises Act 1972 (“DPA 1972”) on a project competed some 20 years previously.

The Technology and Construction Court (‘TCC’) recently enforced the decision of the adjudicator in the case of Essential Living (Greenwich) Limited v Conneely Facades Limited [2024] EWHC 2629, despite the defendant’s suggestion that the adjudicator had predetermined the case at an earlier stage in proceedings.