The TCC has recently handed down a decision in the case of McLaughlin & Harvey Ltd v LJJ Limited, providing guidance on the “slip rule”.

Earlier this year, we examined the Court of Appeal's decision in Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council and discussed how this case highlighted the court's ability to compel parties in court proceedings to engage in Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) such as mediation. 

Triathlon Homes LLP v (1) Stratford Village Development Partnership (2) Get Living plc (3) East Village Management Limited [2024] UKFTT 26 (PC)

Background

In 2023, adjudication remained a popular process for resolving disputes within the construction industry. Some of these disputes ultimately required input from the courts, which provide us with many interesting and relevant cases. We have highlighted some of the key commercial lessons arising from them below. 

Background

In 2023, the construction industry continued to provide many interesting and relevant cases. We’ve highlighted some of the key commercial lessons arising from them below. 

The Court of Session upheld an adjudicator’s decision and ordered Scottish Hydro Electric pay £1.8 million to Amey Power Services and UK Grid Solutions, following a delay in the delivery and installation of two transformers. 

The court held an adjudicator does not need to expressly refer to a party’s arguments, provided it is shown that the adjudicator has generally considered the submissions made and decided those with reasons. This case demonstrates the increasing difficulty parties have in resisting enforcement of adjudicators’ decisions.

The recent Court of Appeal (COA) decision in Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council (the “Council”) (29 November 2023) highlights the court’s ability to compel parties in court proceedings to engage in Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) such as mediation. The decision confirms the courts have the right to order a stay (pause) of process for that purpose.

New Guidance was published on 12 December 2023 by the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary service: Artificial Intelligence (AI) – Guidance for Judicial Office Holders. It’s intended to assist and instruct judges on their use of AI.

The purpose of this guidance is to highlight the risk of difficulties arising and to temper reliance by the judiciary upon AI in the work that they and their staff undertake. It suggests ways to avoid unreliable and potentially fundamentally flawed judgments.