by Hardwick Legal | Aug 7, 2020 | Purpose Built (LexisNexis)
<article><article><section><p>Energy analysis: With the ever-increasing pressure on the UK to move to net zero by 2050, this analysis discusses recent regulatory developments seeking to support the transition to low carbon heating and highlights future developments relevant to heat networks.</p><p>The decarbonisation of heat is anticipated to play a fundamental role in achieving net zero. The pressure to move to net zero, a target enshrined in the Climate Change Act 2018 (CCA 2018), whereby carbon emissions are reduced to as close to zero as possible by 2050 and any remaining emissions are offset by the equivalent amount being removed from the atmosphere, has been increasing rapidly.</p><p>Recently, net zero has been put into an even sharper focus in the context of the coronavirus (COVID-19) landscape, with the contraction of traditional oil and gas markets due to lower levels of industrial demand, the accelerated push towards renewable energy and growing calls from consumers and stakeholders for strengthened commitment to sustainability and green recovery.</p><p>Electrification of heat through the transition to heat networks and, at a household level, through a broader deployment of heat pumps to replace gas boiler demand, remain the main routes for decarbonisation.</p><p>This article discusses recent regulatory developments seeking to support the transition to low carbon heating and highlights future developments relevant to heat networks.</p><p>Heating networks may be eligible for the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) schemes, which provide financial support from the government to renewable heat installations where the heat is generated from an RHI-eligible technology (including, for example, biomass, heat pumps, solar and energy from waste). While this aspect is outside the scope of this article, it is worth noting that the RHI schemes are coming to an end (the non-domestic RHI is closing on 31 March 2021 and the domestic scheme on 31 March 2022) and there have been interesting recent developments relating to their closure and replacement.</p><h2>Climate Change Act 2018</h2></section><p>The CCA 2018 (as amended by The <a href="https://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/lexispsl/energy/docfromresult/D-WA-A-WUY-WUY-MsSAYWZ-UUW-UZEYAAUUW-U-U-AUUU-U-U-U-ACEEBUCUDU-ACEZYYCYDU-WEUBUVDY-AUUU-U/23/linkHandler.faces?psldocinfo=The_transition_to_low_carbon_heat_recent_regulatory_developments_on_heat_networks&linkInfo=F%23GB%23UK_ACTS%23num%252008_27a_Title%25&A=0.8734926417632092&bct=A&risb=&service=citation&langcountry=GB" target="_parent">Climate Change Act 2008</a> (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019, <a ></a ></p></article></article>
Source: LexisNexis Purpose Built
The transition to low carbon heat—recent regulatory developments on heat networks
by Hardwick Legal | Aug 4, 2020 | Purpose Built (LexisNexis)
<p>Mike Harlow, General Counsel, Deputy Chief Executive and Deputy Chief Land Registrar at HM Land Registry (HMLR) explains why HMLR is now accepting for registration documents executed using electronic signatures and discusses plans to accept qualified electronic signatures in future.</p><article><section><section><h3>Why are you proposing to accept electronic signatures now and will this be a temporary concession?</h3><p>It is important to understand that there are two quite distinct types of electronic signature which HMLR has considered.</p><p>The first type we call a witnessed electronic signature, which is simply an electronic signature in the place where in a deed you would currently sign with wet ink. So, a witness is still required where someone is signing in their own name.</p><p>The Law Commission’s September 2019 report, <a href="https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lawcom-prod-storage-11jsxou24uy7q/uploads/2019/09/Electronic-Execution-Report.pdf" target="_blank" title="Opens in a new window">Electronic execution of documents</a>,
brought clarity on their legality and set us thinking about how they might be deployed securely within the conveyancing process. That has since been spurred on by the coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis with most conveyancers working from home
and understandably wanting to know how and when we might introduce their use. </p><p>The second type are digital signatures for which the <a data-sf-ec-immutable="" href="https://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/lexispsl/property/document/412012/60H5-CVV3-CGXG-00JY/linkHandler.faces?psldocinfo=Deputy_Chief_Land_Registrar_discusses_decision_to_accept_electronic_signatures_for_registration_at_HMLR&linkInfo=F%23GB%23UK_ACTS%23num%252002_9a_Title%25&A=0.06760960022203688&bct=A&risb=&service=citation&langcountry=GB" target="_parent">Land Registration Act 2002</a> (<a data-sf-ec-immutable="" href="https://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/lexispsl/property/document/412012/60H5-CVV3-CGXG-00JY/linkHandler.faces?psldocinfo=Deputy_Chief_Land_Registrar_discusses_decision_to_accept_electronic_signatures_for_registration_at_HMLR&linkInfo=F%23GB%23UK_ACTS%23num%252002_9a_Title%25&A=0.3154189824372622&bct=A&risb=&service=citation&langcountry=GB" target="_parent">LRA 2002</a>) provides a specific mechanism that allows them to be used in deeds that require registration. We actually use digital signatures at the moment in our ‘digital mortgage&rsquo</p></section></section></article>
Source: LexisNexis Purpose Built
Deputy Chief Land Registrar discusses decision to accept electronic signatures for registration at HMLR
by Hardwick Legal | Aug 3, 2020 | Purpose Built (LexisNexis)
<section><p>Environment analysis: The government has published its long term plan to tackle the risks of flooding and coastal erosion. This comprehensive plan includes significant investment to create approximately 2,000 new flood and coastal defences to better protect 336,000 properties in England by 2027. The policy statement builds on the approach taken in the 25 Year Plan. The goals of the strategy are to ‘create a nation more resilient to future flood and coastal erosion risk and in doing so, reduce the risk of harm to people, the environment and the economy’. The policy also introduces proposed changes to the Flood Re insurance scheme, a new Innovative Resilience Programme and accelerated flood defence construction.</p><p>Defra has published its <a data-sf-ec-immutable="" href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/900094/flood-coastal-erosion-policy-statement.pdf" target="_blank" title="Opens in a new window">Flood and coastal erosion risk management: Policy Statement</a> (Policy Statement). The new plan is the most comprehensive in a decade, and includes proposed investment of £5.2bn to create around 2,000 new flood and coastal defences to better protect 336,000 properties in England by 2027, alongside support to help households and businesses recover more quickly after flooding. This policy statement builds on the approach taken in the <a data-sf-ec-immutable="" href="https://gov.uk/government/publications/25-year-environment-plan" target="_blank" title="Opens in a new window">25 Year Plan</a> and in the <a data-sf-ec-immutable="" href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/climate-change-second-national-adaptation-programme-2018-to-2023" target="_blank" title="Opens in a new window">National Adaptation Programme</a> and sets out national goals specifically for flooding and coastal erosion.</p><p>For more information on the 25 Year Plan see Practice Note: <a data-sf-ec-immutable="" href="https://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/lexispsl/environment/document/412012/linkHandler.faces?psldocinfo=Government_publishes_long_term_plan_to_tackle_the_risks_of_flooding_and_coastal_erosion&ps=null&bct=A&homeCsi=0&A=0.34581213735396354&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&&dpsi=0OLN&remotekey1=DOC-ID&remotekey2=0OLN_3289342&service=DOC-ID&origdpsi=0S4D">25 Year Environment Plan Tracker</a>.</p><h2>What is the background to the Policy Statement?</h2></section><p>Flooding and coastal erosion can cause significant damage and disruption to infrastructure, properties, health, wellbeing, land and natural habitats. Risks from flooding and coastal change are recognised in the government’s <a data-sf-ec-immutable="" href="https://gov.uk/government/publications/uk-climate-change-risk-assessment-2017" target="_blank" title="Opens in a new window">UK Climate Change Risk Assessment</a>. As climate change leads to sea level rise and more extreme rainfall, the number of people at risk from flooding and coastal erosion continues to grow. The <a data-sf-ec-immutable="" href="https://metoffice.gov.uk/research/approach/collaboration/ukcp/index" target="_blank" title="Opens in a new window">UK Climate Projections 2018</a> show an increased chance </p>
Source: LexisNexis Purpose Built
Government publishes long-term plan to tackle the risks of flooding and coastal erosion
by Hardwick Legal | Jul 17, 2020 | Purpose Built (LexisNexis)
<p>On 30 June 2020, the Department for Transport (DfT) <a data-sf-ec-immutable="" href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/rental-e-scooter-trials-to-be-allowed-from-this-weekend">announced</a> that rental electric scooters would be available for the first time in the UK as part of the government’s effort to support a ‘green’ restart of local transport following the easing of lockdown measures. </p><p>‘E-scooters’ are now being introduced as part of a 12-month trial to test the impacts they have on traffic, safety and the use of public space in local areas. Given the potential for e-scooters to provide a means of socially distanced travel and reduce the number of passengers making use of public transport, this trial has been <a data-sf-ec-immutable="" href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/2-billion-package-to-create-new-era-for-cycling-and-walking">fast-tracked and expanded</a> to all local areas in England, Scotland and Wales.</p><p><a data-sf-ec-immutable="" href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/663/made">Legislative changes</a> which came into force on 4 July 2020 allow rental e-scooters to be driven on cycle lanes, and DfT expects trials to begin by August 2020. The use of private e-scooters remains illegal.</p><p> </p><h2>Background to the trial </h2><p>From 16 March to 3 July 2020, the government held a <a data-sf-ec-immutable="" href="https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/future-of-transport-regulatory-review-call-for-evidence-on-micromobility-vehicles-flexible-bus-services-and-mobility-as-a-service">call for evidence</a> as part of the DfT’s <a data-sf-ec-immutable="" href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/846593/future-of-mobility-strategy.pdf">Future of Mobility: Urban Strategy</a>, which laid out the government’s principle-based approach to innovating the transport sector. The call for evidence asked, among other things, for respondent’s views on the regulation of micromobility vehicles (which includes e-scooters). </p><p>Micromobility vehicles were proposed as a way to replace short car journeys and provide alternative mobility in areas with limited public transport. They can act as ‘first/last-mile’ transport options between parking spots and final destinations, or homes and transport hubs. DfT also discussed the potential benefit of e-scooters providing inclusive and environmentally-friendly modes of transport, while reducing road congestion.</p><p> </p><h2>E-scooters and the environment </h2><p>One of the governing principles of the DfT’s <a data-sf-ec-immutable="" href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/846593/future-of-mobility-strategy.pdf">Urban Strategy</a> is the requirement that new mobility services ‘lead the transition to zero emissions’. This is in line with the government’s </p>
Source: LexisNexis Purpose Built
The trial of e-scooters
by Hardwick Legal | Jul 6, 2020 | Purpose Built (LexisNexis)
<div><p>In <em>Millchris Developments Ltd v Waters </em><a data-sf-ec-immutable="" href="https://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=608H-B0B3-GXFD-809J&csi=316762&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t" target="_blank">[2020] EWHC 1320 (TCC)</a>,
the Technology and Construction Court refused to grant an interim injunction to prohibit the defendant from continuing or commencing adjudication proceedings, rejecting the claimant’s submission that the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic gave
rise to exceptional circumstances in which an injunction should be granted.</p></div><h3>What are the practical implications of this case?</h3><p>The case confirms that it will only be in exceptional circumstances that the court will grant an injunction to restrain adjudication proceedings where the basis put forward is that the adjudication will necessarily be conducted in breach of natural
justice. An example of such a scenario, suggested by the court, was where the adjudicator had made it plain that they only intended to hear from one party.</p><p>In relation to the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on adjudication proceedings, the ruling makes it clear that the court will expect the parties to give thought to appropriate workarounds, such as remote conferences and site visits, in order to
enable proceedings to continue. Where a party remains concerned that it is unable to comply with an adjudication timetable, the best solution may be to seek to agree an extension with the other party or adjudicator (as appropriate), rather than
attempt to restrain the proceedings entirely.</p><h3>What was the background?</h3><p>Ms Waters appointed Millchris to carry out works at her home in Margate under a JCT Home Owner Contract. Although the contract was not subject to the <a data-sf-ec-immutable="" href="https://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/lexispsl/construction/document/412012/608J-C3B3-GXFD-80YH/linkHandler.faces?psldocinfo=Coronavirus__COVID_19__court_refuses_to_injunct_adjudication_proceedings__Millchris_Developments_v_Waters_&linkInfo=F%23GB%23UK_ACTS%23num%251996_53a_Title%25&A=0.2811847759253514&bct=A&risb=&service=citation&langcountry=GB" target="_parent">Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, </a>it provided an express right for disputes to be referred to adjudication.</p><p>On 23 March 2020, Waters commenced an adjudication against Millchris in relation to alleged overcharging on the final account and defects. An adjudicator was appointed and the timetable provided for Waters to serve her submission by 30 March and for
Millchris to respond by 3 April. On 26 March, Millchris wrote to the adjudicat</p>
Source: LexisNexis Purpose Built
Coronavirus (COVID-19)—court refuses to injunct adjudication proceedings (Millchris Developments v Waters)
by Hardwick Legal | Jun 26, 2020 | Purpose Built (LexisNexis)
<p>Last week’s Supreme Court ruling in <em>Bresco v Lonsdale</em> <a data-sf-ec-immutable="" href="https://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=6055-1SB3-GXFD-83X0&csi=279841&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t" target="_blank">[2020] UKSC 25</a> has already been widely reported and discussed. It has been heralded by a number of commentators as a welcome decision for insolvency professionals, who will now look to utilise adjudication as a quick and convenient route to determine claims in the
liquidation of construction companies. </p><p>The decision does, however, raise a number of important questions. Emma Healiss, barrister at Keating Chambers, considers what the answers to some of those questions might be. </p><p><strong>What will the test be on enforcement?</strong></p><p>As explained in News Analysis: <a data-sf-ec-immutable="" href="https://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/lexispsl/construction/document/412012/6066-YDS3-CGXG-0027-00000-00">Supreme Court—construction adjudication not incompatible with insolvency set-off (Bresco v Lonsdale)</a>,
the Supreme Court concluded both (1) that an adjudicator to whom a dispute is referred by a party in liquidation does have jurisdiction to determine the dispute, and (2) that such an adjudication is not futile because, whether or not the decision
will ultimately be enforceable, adjudication is a valid and useful form of ADR in its own right. </p><p><span style="background-color:transparent;color:inherit;font-family:inherit;font-size:inherit;text-align:inherit;text-transform:inherit;white-space:inherit;word-spacing:normal;caret-color:auto;">The notable point here is that the Supreme Court expressly acknowledged that some adjudication decisions commenced by companies in liquidation would not be enforced. Indeed, at paragraph 67 of the judgment, Lord Briggs stated:</span><br></p><blockquote><em style="background-color:transparent;color:inherit;font-family:inherit;font-size:inherit;text-align:inherit;text-transform:inherit;white-space:inherit;word-spacing:normal;caret-color:auto;">“The proper answer to all these issues about enforcement is that they can be dealt with, as Chadwick LJ suggested, at the enforcement stage, if there is one. In many cases the liquidator will not seek to enforce the adjudicator’s decision summarily. In others the liquidator may offer appropriate undertakings, such as to ring-fence any enforcement proceeds: see the discussion of undertakings in the Meadowside case. Where there remains a real risk that the summary enforcement of an adjudication decision will deprive the respondent of its right to have recourse to the company’s claim as security (pro tanto) for its cross-claim, then the court will be astute to refuse summary judgment.”</em>
<em style="background-color:transparent;color:inherit;font-family:inherit;font-size:inherit;text-align:inherit;text-transform:inherit;white-space:inherit;word-spacing:normal;caret-color:auto;"></em><span style="background-color:transparent;color:inherit;font-family:inherit;font-size:inherit;text-align:inherit;text-transform:inherit;white-space:inherit;word-spacing:normal;caret-color:auto;"></span></blockquote><p><span style="background-color:transparent;color:inherit;font-family:inherit;font-size:inherit;text-align:inherit;text-transform:inherit;white-space:inherit;word-spacing:normal;caret-color:auto;"></span><span style="background-color:transparent;color:inherit;font-family:inherit;font-size:inherit;text-align:inherit;text-transform:inherit;white-space:inherit;word-spacing:normal;caret-color:auto;"><br>The question then arises – what will be the test applied by the TCC on an application to enforce an adjudicator’s decision by way of summary judgment? Whilst this was not expressly spelt out in the Supreme Court’s judgment, it is clear from the final two sentences of paragraph 67 that Lord Briggs endorsed the reasoning in </span>
<em style="background-color:transparent;color:inherit;font-family:inherit;font-size:inherit;text-align:inherit;text-transform:inherit;white-space:inherit;word-spacing:normal;caret-color:auto;">Meadowside Building Developments Limited (In Liquidation) v 12-18 Hill Street Management Company Ltd</em><span style="background-color:transparent;color:inherit;font-family:inherit;font-size:inherit;text-align:inherit;text-transform:inherit;white-space:inherit;word-spacing:normal;caret-color:auto;"> <a data-sf-ec-immutable="" href="https://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getdoc data-sf-ec-immutable="" href=""></a data-sf-ec-immutable="" href="https://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getdoc></span></p>
Source: LexisNexis Purpose Built
Bresco v Lonsdale: unanswered questions
