Beneficiaries of collateral warranties may now be able to enforce them more easily
Contrary to the view of the industry, the Technology and Construction Court has recently held that in certain circumstances a collateral warranty may be a ‘construction contract’ that brings with it the requirements and benefits of the Construction Act. This article will explain the benefit of this decision to those who have the benefit of collateral warranties.
By way of reminder, a ‘construction contract’ is one for any of the following: the carrying out of or arranging the carrying out of construction operations and/or providing labour for construction operations. ‘Construction operations’ is widely defined and covers professional services including architecture and surveying. Some construction operations are excluded from the remit of the Construction Act and these include, among others, engineering works and the manufacture of goods to be used in construction.
If a contract is properly classified a ‘construction contract’, the act requires that it must contain an adequate mechanism for payment and statutory adjudication will apply for dispute resolution…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Winckworth Sherwood briefing.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Winckworth Sherwood
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Winckworth Sherwood
The EAT considered whether an employee who said she was too ill to resign for 18 months and who received 39 weeks’ sick pay during that period had affirmed her contract.
It is possible for employers to defend unfair dismissal claims arising from inappropriate use of social media even if the misconduct is not work-related.