by Hardwick Legal | Feb 12, 2020 | Purpose Built (LexisNexis)
<p><i>Jonathan Spencer (Partner) and Jordane Watson (Trainee Solicitor) of Simmons & Simmons consider the judgment in Lejonvarn v Burgess <a data-sf-ec-immutable="" href="https://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=5Y57-14D3-GXFD-827V&csi=279841&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t" target="_blank">[2020] EWCA Civ 114</a>, in which the Court of Appeal held that costs should have been awarded on an indemnity basis following an unsuccessful professional negligence claim.</i></p><p>This case is known to many in the construction industry. The underlying dispute involved an architect who was sued by her neighbours for providing allegedly-negligent free advice, concerning a significant landscaping project.</p><p>The last chapter in this unusual story involved a victory for the architect, when the High Court rejected the claimants’ allegations of breach of duty in respect of the services the architect actually provided – describing aspects of the case as “threadbare” and offending common sense. The full background to this case and an analysis of the earlier decisions can be found <a target="_blank" href="[f669d9a7-009d-4d83-ddaa-000000000002]22CE9C9F-2904-42B9-8325-107E19D7FEF2/construction-professionals-and-duties-of-inspection">here</a>.</p><p>The latest decision involves a ruling on costs, and some very interesting commentary from Lord Justice Coulson who described the case as one that has “echoes of the bad old days” when “construction litigation was a byword for expense and delay”.</p><p>In short, the architect appealed the court’s ruling that costs should be awarded on the standard basis and argued that they should be awarded on an indemnity basis. The court found in favour of the appellant and, in doing so, addressed three distinct issues:</p><h3>1. Was the respondents’ conduct out of the norm?</h3><p>The central issue was whether the respondents (or their advisors) sho</p>
Source: LexisNexis Purpose Built
The case that keeps on giving: Lejonvarn v Burgess
by Hardwick Legal | Feb 11, 2020 | Purpose Built (LexisNexis)
<p>Welcome to our February 2020 environmental law podcast. In this month’s podcast, Christopher Badger and Mark Davies take us on a deep dive on certain key aspects of the Environment Bill (the Bill), which was reintroduced to parliament on 30 January 2020. </p><p>To listen to the podcast, click <a href="http://ln-multi-web.cloudapp.net/blog/docs/default-source/purpose-built-documents/2020_02_10_envipodcast_draft1.mp3?sfvrsn=f57b60e5_2&download=true" data-sf-ec-immutable="">here</a>. </p><p>To start with Mark takes us through the structure of the Bill, highlighting each part of the legislation which the government says forms part of the ‘pitch to be a world leader on the environment as we leave the EU’, with it setting ‘a gold standard for improving air quality, protecting nature, increasing recycling and cutting down on plastic waste’. We hear Chris and Mark’s thoughts on how comprehensive they think the Bill really is.</p><p>On environmental targets, we hear that the Bill </p>
Source: LexisNexis Purpose Built
Environmental law podcast - February 2020
by Hardwick Legal | Feb 4, 2020 | Purpose Built (LexisNexis)
<p> </p><p>Energy analysis: Ofgem has announced its decision following the Targeted Charging Review (TCR), that residual charges will be levied in the form of fixed charges for all households and businesses and to remove liability for the transmission generation residual from generators. Kirath Bharya, associate at Gowling WLG, discusses the implications of the decision for market participants and consumers.</p><h2>What is the background to the TCR?</h2><p>The TCR is part of Ofgem’s wider review of network access and charging, which is reviewing how licensed electricity network operators recover the costs of maintaining and balancing their networks. Ofgem is proposing to use the principles of reducing distortion, fairness and proportionality to assess its charging reforms.</p><p>Ofgem categorises network charges as either:</p><ul><li>‘forward-looking’ charges which are intended to send signals to users about how future network charges will change depending on how they behave. These charges are designed to encourage users to use the networks efficiently<br></li><li>‘residual’ charges which recover the remainder of the costs that are not covered by the forward-looking charges</li></ul><p>The aim of the TCR is to reform the residual charges and certain related ‘embedded benefits’. Embedded benefits are the benefits that have been traditionally associated with electricity generating stations that are connected to distribution networks rather than transmission networks. Ofgem believes these benefits are responsible for market distortion, hence the need for reform.</p><p>On 28 November 2018, Ofgem published the ‘<a data-sf-ec-immutable="" href="http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications-and-updates/targeted-charging-review-minded-decision-and-draft-impact-assessment" target="_blank" title="Opens in a new window">Targeted Charging Review: minded to decision and draft impact assessment</a>’. The consultation covered reforms on the way in which Ofgem recovers the costs of the networks used to transport electricity. Ofgem then published its ‘<a data-sf-ec-immutable="" href="http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications-and-updates/future-charging-and-access-programme-consultation-refined-residual-charging-banding-targeted-charging-review" target="_blank" title="Opens in a new window">Future Charging and Access programme—consultation on refined residual charging banding in the Targeted Charging Review</a>’ in September 2019. In November 2019, it published its ‘<a data-sf-ec-immutable="" id="ORIGHIT_15" name="ORIGHIT_15"> <bogus></bogus></a><a data-sf-ec-immutable="" id="ORIGHIT_16" name="ORIGHIT_16"><bogus></bogus></a><a data-sf-ec-immutable="" id="ORIGHIT_17" name="ORIGHIT_17"><bogus></bogus></a><a data-sf-ec-immutable="" id="ORIGHIT_18" name="ORIGHIT_18"><bogus></bogus></a><a data-sf-ec-immutable="" id="ORIGHIT_19" name="ORIGHIT_19"><bogus></bogus></a><a data-sf-ec-immutable="" id="ORIGHIT_20" name="ORIGHIT_20"><bogus></bogus></a><a data-sf-ec-immutable="" id="ORIGHIT_21" name="ORIGHIT_21"><bogus></bogus></a><a data-sf-ec-immutable="" _.hitnav="Y" name="HIT_15"><bogus></bogus></a><a data-sf-ec-immutable="" _.hitnav="Y" name="HIT_16"><bogus></bogus></a><a data-sf-ec-immutable="" _.hitnav="Y" name="HIT_17"><bogus></bogus></a><a data-sf-ec-immutable="" _.hitnav="Y" name="HIT_18"><bogus></bogus></a><a data-sf-ec-immutable="" _.hitnav="Y" name="HIT_19"><bogus></bogus></a><a data-sf-ec-immutable="" _.hitnav="Y" name="HIT_20"><bogus></bogus></a><a data-sf-ec-immutable="" _.hitnav="Y" name="HIT_21"><bogus></bogus></a><a data-sf-ec-immutable="" href="http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications-and-updates/targeted-charging-review-decision-and-impact-assessment" target="_blank" title="Opens in a new window">Targeted Charging Review: Decision and Impact Assessment</a>’.</p><h2>What are the key assessment</h2>
Source: LexisNexis Purpose Built
Implications of Ofgems Targeted Charging Review decision
by Hardwick Legal | Jan 27, 2020 | Purpose Built (LexisNexis)
<p>Welcome to the January 2020 environmental law news podcast. In this podcast, Christopher Badger and Mark Davies of 6 Pump Court take us through the following environmental law updates:</p><ul><li>Predictions for hot topics in environmental law in 2020;</li><li>Urgenda’s success in the Dutch Supreme Court; and </li><li>The Upper Tribunal’s decision in the ongoing ‘fluff’ litigation.</li></ul><p>To listen to the podcast, click <a href="http://ln-multi-web.cloudapp.net/blog/docs/default-source/purpose-built-documents/2020_01_23_environmentalpodcast_january.mp3?sfvrsn=14f6c263_2&download=true" data-sf-ec-immutable="">here</a>. </p><p><b>Predictions for 2020 - listen from 0.34 mins</b></p><p>In the first part of the podcast, Chris and Mark talk through some of their predictions for key areas in environmental law during 2020, starting with their thoughts on the soon to be Environment Act 2020. Chris and Mark suggest that we will see little substantive change to the current shape of the Bill, that the g<font size="-1">overnment’s commitment to a ‘level playing field’ will not amount to equivalence with EU standards, that there won’t be a </font><font size="-1">non-regression clause and that there are likely to be f</font><font size="-1">ew effective means of monitoring domestic progress towards the hitting of future environmental targets.</font></p><p><font size="- size=""></font size="-></p>
Source: LexisNexis Purpose Built
Environmental law podcast - January 2020
by Hardwick Legal | Dec 11, 2019 | Purpose Built (LexisNexis)
<p>Welcome to our final podcast for 2019! In this podcast, Christopher Badger and Mark Davies of 6 Pump Court take us through the following environmental law updates:</p><ul><li>a look at the relationship between requests for disclosure under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and legal professional privilege; </li><li>the Committee on Climate Change’s (CCC) most recent call for evidence; and</li><li>the latest EU developments on green finance</li></ul><p>To listen to the podcast, click <a href="https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/blog/docs/default-source/purpose-built-documents/2019_12_09_environmentalpodcast.mp3?sfvrsn=d1f93a36_2&download=true" data-sf-ec-immutable="">here</a>.</p><p><b>The relationship between requests for disclosure under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and legal professional privilege- listen from 0.40 seconds</b></p><p>In the first part of the podcast, Chris and Mark take us through the recent case of <i>Brooksbank v the Information Commissioner. </i>In this surprising case, we hear about the public interest factors which favoured disclosure of privileged instructions to law</p>
Source: LexisNexis Purpose Built
Environmental law news podcast – December 2019
by Hardwick Legal | Dec 2, 2019 | Purpose Built (LexisNexis)
<p>Where do you live? In a built-up city? In the heart of nature? Or somewhere between the two? What is your attitude to spending time in nature and how much do you know about the physical and mental benefits of spending time in a rural environment?</p><p>Following shortly after International #WorldCitiesDay, these were some of the questions asked by the UKELA Nature Conservation Public Health & Environmental Law Working Parties yesterday at a joint presentation on ‘Using the law to balance health, wellbeing and nature protection’.</p><p> </p><p>Tavis Potts, Reader in environmental geography at the University of Aberdeen, gave an interesting presentation on Natural Capital and Marine EcoSystem Services, encouraging a natural capital approach to the marine environment and emphasising the need for an increased acknowledgement of this habitat in policy and government decision-making. He outlined his recent work with coastal communities to understand and map their natural capital to support wellbeing. Tavis presented directly from his office at Aberdeen University, true to his commitment to cut carbon emissions and declining the invitation to fly to London for the seminar. </p><p>Other speakers included Debbie Tripley, Director of Environmental Policy and Advocacy, WWF UK and Professor Paul Leonard, Environmental Scientist and Honorary Professor at Brunel University. Debbie looked briefly at the history of environmental protection in England, from the construction of the Natural History Museum as a ‘cathedral to nature’ in 1881, to the shortcomings of the present day draft Environment Bill, stressing her concerns that we need stronger environmental protection laws post-Brexit and a systemic change in our way of thinking. Paul Leonard gave an engaging overview of the progress of science-based evidence for our seas. Paul h</p>
Source: LexisNexis Purpose Built
The Human Habitat: Using the Law to balance Health, Wellbeing and Nature Protection
