JCT contracts 1998

JCT contracts 1998

The Joint Contracts Tribunal (JCT) suite of contracts can be used in relation to the majority of construction projects and procurement methods. For more information on

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Construction News

Construction weekly highlights—30 January 2025

This week's edition of Construction weekly highlights includes analysis of cases where the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) found a ‘building safety risk’ which could lead to the making of a ‘building liability order’ under the Building Safety Act 2022 (381 Southwark Park Road v Click St Andrews), where the Court of Session enforced an adjudicator’s award following ‘Smash and Grab’ adjudication proceedings (ATG Services v Ogilvie), where the TCC gave valuable guidance on payment notices, pay less notices, and default payment notices (Placefirst v Car Construction), and where the Court of Appeal (CoA) dismissed an appeal related to the High Court’s calculation of damages where the claimant’s mitigation actions resulted in an increased benefit to the company, as well as the Cabinet Office’s update on the final preparations for the Procurement Act 2023 (PA 2023) coming into force on 24 February 2025, and publication by HM Treasury (HMT) of a working paper on its 10 Year Infrastructure Strategy.

High Court finds a ‘building safety risk’ which could lead to the making of a ‘building liability order’ under the Building Safety Act 2022 and permits RTM company to claim damages on behalf of leaseholders (381 Southwark Park Road RTM & Various Leaseholders v Click St Andrews)

Property Disputes analysis: This is the first High Court case to hold that defective works by a developer gave rise to a ‘relevant liability’ as a result of a ‘building safety risk’ under section 130(3)(b) of the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA 2022), paving the way for the claimant right to manage company (RTM Co) to apply at a subsequent hearing for a building liability order (BLO) against the parent company of the insolvent developer. The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) gave guidance on the procedure for seeking a BLO. Further, the RTM Co was, under an agreement to purchase the property, able to recover against the developer and by extension against the parent company as guarantor, all of the individual leaseholders’ losses for breach of covenant in their leases. Written by Tiffany Scott, barrister, Wilberforce Chambers.

Valuable guidance on payment notices, pay less notices, and default payment notices (Placefirst v Car Construction)

Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) held that a contractor had served a valid payment and pay less notice in relation to an interim payment dispute. The judgment gives important guidance on the timing and form of payment and pay less notices, and payee’s notices in default, addressing several matters that have not been considered in prior decisions. It also brings into question whether certain provisions of the Joint Contracts Tribunal (JCT) forms of sub-contract comply with the payment requirements of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA 1996).

Amendments in retrospect—Repair or replace? (R v Revenue and Customs Commissioners)

Commercial analysis: An appeal was brought to the Supreme Court to determine the correct characterisation of a contract. The dispute related to whether two parties had varied an existing contract or rescinded and replaced it with a new one. The Court reviewed the applicable principles and decided that the agreements in question did constitute new agreements rescinding and replacing the former contracts. The appeal was therefore dismissed. Written by Alexander Whatley, barrister at 3PB Chambers.