by Hardwick Legal | Mar 25, 2020 | Purpose Built (LexisNexis)
<article data-sf-ec-immutable=""><p>Sarah Schütte of Schutte Consulting Limited discusses the issues on site due to the impact of coronavirus (COVID-19) and some of the practicalities facing the construction industry.</p></article><h3>Why are construction sites still open and should they close?</h3><p>Do whatever you can to avoid the risk of coronavirus. That’s what the government led by Boris Johnson, as sagely advised by Sir Patrick Vallance (Government Chief Scientific Adviser) and Chris Whitty (Chief Medical Adviser), are saying. As of
Monday 23 March, ‘stay at home’ became an order, enforceable by emergency police powers.</p><p>And yet, construction sites remain open. Why?</p><p>It comes down to the complexity, and harshness, of life in construction. Many coal-face workers are individuals on day rates. They may be British, European or from elsewhere, it doesn’t matter. For them, the risk of the virus is less important
than the need to earn, to have that clutch of cash in the hand at the end of the day. Organisations ‘up the chain’ know this but are turning a blind eye—funders won’t release access to a facility unless progress is made
(and shown, usually to their own (ie engaged by the funder) monitoring agent or similar clipboard-wielding official). Progress can’t be made and shown until the whole chain delivers—employer, contractor, sub-contractor, sub-sub-contractor,
labourer. And so the problem is pushed down and down until it reaches the bottom. Where the brickie, or sparkie or chippie or welder is actually doing the work.</p><p>A programme manager that I talked to yesterday said:</p><blockquote><p>How do you maintain social distance when your contract programme assumes clear access to a work face, but </p></blockquote>
Source: LexisNexis Purpose Built
Industry insight: Should construction sites close due to coronavirus (COVID-19)?
by Hardwick Legal | Mar 11, 2020 | Purpose Built (LexisNexis)
<p>Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rishi Sunak MP, delivered the Budget 2020 on 11 March 2020. We bring together the most important features for infrastructure, housebuilding and the planning regime.</p><p>The full text of the Budget 2020 is available <a data-sf-ec-immutable="" href="http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/budget-2020-documents" target="_blank" title="Opens in a new window">here</a>.</p><h3>What are the Budget’s headlines for infrastructure?</h3><p>The Budget commits the government to a total of £640bn of gross capital infrastructure investment, including:</p><ul><li>investment of over £27bn in English strategic roads between 2020 and 2025, to be known as the second Road Investment Strategy (RIS2), to take forward schemes such as dualling the A66 Trans-Pennine road and upgrading the A46 Newark bypass, building
a new dual carriageway and a two-mile tunnel in the South West to speed up journeys on the A303 and to remove traffic from the setting of Stonehenge, and building the Lower Thames Crossing</li><li>investment in urban transport of £4.2bn for five-year funding settlements for eight Mayoral Combined Authorities (in West Yorkshire, Greater Manchester, West Midlands, Liverpool City Region, Tyne and Wear, West of England, Sheffield City Region
and Tees Valley), to support a range of schemes, to be determined by elected Mayors<br></li><li>£1bn for the Transforming Cities Fund, to deliver various local transport schemes by 2022–23, including a new Central Park Bridge in Plymouth, and a significant increase in the capacity of the Tyne and Wear Metro. It includes around £800m
for bus and cycling infrastructure<br></li><li>funding of £5.2bn for flood defences between 2021 and 2027, and additional funding of £200m to help communities most at risk of flooding recover<br></li><li>investing £20m to develop the Midlands Rail Hub, progressing plans for a major programme of improvements to rail services across these regions<br></li><li>investment in electric vehicle charging infrastructure to ensure drivers are never more than 30 miles from a rapid charging station</li></ul><p>A Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Infrastructure Fund </p>
Source: LexisNexis Purpose Built
The Budget 2020—infrastructure, housebuilding and planning announcements
by Hardwick Legal | Mar 5, 2020 | Purpose Built (LexisNexis)
<p>In <i>Yuanda v Multiplex</i> <a data-sf-ec-immutable="" href="https://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/lexispsl/construction/document/316762/5Y9P-65M3-GXFD-84WY-00000-00" target="_blank">[2020] EWHC 468 (TCC)</a>, the Technology and Construction Court held
that a bond, based on the ABI Model Form of Guarantee Bond, was a performance bond and not an on demand bond. It also held that an adjudicator’s decision (as to the sub-contractor’s liability to the contractor for delay damages) would
be sufficient to establish liability to pay under the bond.</p><section><h3>What are the practical implications of this case?</h3><p>The case provides an example of the court construing security to determine whether it is an on demand bond or a performance bond. More information on the differences between these two types of bond can be found in Practice Notes: <a data-sf-ec-immutable="" href="https://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/lexispsl/construction/docfromresult/D-WA-A-AVW-AVW-MsSAYWC-UUA-UZEYAAUUW-U-U-AUUU-U-U-U-ACYZUAABYW-ACYBCEWAYW-DABCCUCUA-AUUU-U/5/linkHandler.faces?psldocinfo=Court_construes_bond_based_on_ABI_Model_Form__Yuanda_v_Multiplex_&ps=null&bct=A&homeCsi=412012&A=0.36730383704940217&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&dpsi=0OJQ&remotekey1=DOC-ID&remotekey2=0OJQ_151268&service=DOC-ID&origdpsi=0S4D">Performance bonds—construction projects</a> and
<a data-sf-ec-immutable="" href="https://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/lexispsl/construction/docfromresult/D-WA-A-AVW-AVW-MsSAYWC-UUA-UZEYAAUUW-U-U-AUUU-U-U-U-ACYZUAABYW-ACYBCEWAYW-DABCCUCUA-AUUU-U/5/linkHandler.faces?psldocinfo=Court_construes_bond_based_on_ABI_Model_Form__Yuanda_v_Multiplex_&ps=null&bct=A&homeCsi=412012&A=0.36730383704940217&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&dpsi=0OJQ&remotekey1=DOC-ID&remotekey2=0OJQ_152491&service=DOC-ID&origdpsi=0S4D">On demand performance bonds—construction projects</a>. The finding that the bond in question was a performance bond was not surprising, and the court had reached the same conclusion in respect of a bond based on the ABI Model Form in <i>Ziggurat v CC International </i><a data-sf-ec-immutable="" href="https://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/lexispsl/construction/document/316762/5R73-9ND1-F0JY-C517-00000-00" target="_blank">[2017] EWHC 3286 (TCC)</a>.</p><p>The ruling also indicates that, where a performance bond requires the amount of damages to be established in accordance with the underlying contract, a valid adjudication decision may well be sufficient for this purpose (depending on the breach in
question).</p></section><h3>What was the background?</h3><p>Multiplex, the main contractor on the ‘One Blackfriars’ tower project in London, appointed Yuanda as its sub-contractor under a JCT Design and Build Sub-Contract 2011. Yuanda provided a bond to Multiplex based on the ABI Model Form of Guarantee
Bond. The sub-contract works were delayed and Multiplex commenced an adjudication against Yuanda seeking to recover substantial liquidated and ascertained damages (LADs) for delay levied against it by Multiplex’s em</p>
Source: LexisNexis Purpose Built
Court construes bond based on ABI Model Form
