Development Approval for London’s Tallest Building In April 2016, the City of London used its powers under s237 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Act) to allow development of what will be London’s Tallest Building: the 62 story structure known as 22 Bishopsgate. Following planning permission granted in November 2015, 22 Bishopsgate’s future came into doubt following numerous rights to light claims submitted by adjoining property owners. However, in exercising their rights under s237 of the Act, the City of London has secured the development of 22 Bishopsgate by removing the right to injunctive relief for those claiming rights to light; instead entitling adjoining owners to compensation (which will be secured by indemnities from the developer). The City of London’s use of its powers under s237 is rare, occurring last in 2011 in relation to the Walkie Talkie building.
Joint Contracts Tribunal Proposed Changes Users of the United Kingdom’s Joint Contracts Tribunal (JCT) suite of contracts should note a number of proposed changes to the suite, scheduled to come into effect later this year. Proposed changes include extension of insurance options, bringing the suite of contracts up to date with legislative amendments, simplification of payment provisions in line with legislation, and provision for performance bonds to be provided by contractors in larger contract works.
Contract Ambiguity & Deleted Contract Clauses Two recent English cases have considered the question of when deleted contract clauses can be taken into account if the remaining contract wording is ambiguous. The question is of particular relevance for construction contracts, given the frequency of amendments made to standard form contracts and the resulting capacity for ambiguity. In both cases, the Courts concluded that deleted clauses can be taken into account where there is ambiguity in the contract wording, but that such consideration must be done with care and in light of the context in which the new wording was negotiated (Narandas-Girdhar v Bradstock [2016] EWCA Civ 88 and J Murphy & Sons v Beckton Energy [2016] EWHC 607 (TCC)).
Building Controls Update Recent media coverage of allegations that certain building products are unfit for purpose or non-compliant with the Building Code has prompted the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) to establish a dedicated email address for submission of product complaints for investigation. Concerns or complaints about building products should be sent to [email protected]. It is MBIE’s role to monitor the building products market, investigate complaints, and deal with products that don’t comply with the Building Code. Following investigation by MBIE, complaints may result in the issue of formal warnings, banned use of a product, provision of industry guidance or further education for those producing and using specific building products. Manufacturers and suppliers can determine whether their product is compliant with the Building Code and various legal obligations by visiting MBIE’s dedicated toolkit at www.building.govt.nz/product-assurance.
Do you Actually Know Who You Are Contracting With? Knowing and confirming who you are actually contracting with is just as important as finalising and executing a contract. In a recent UK case Mr Collins entered a verbal construction contract for the development and sale of a residential property (Fairhurst Developments Ltd & Anor v Collins & Anor [2016] EWHC 199). However, when a dispute arose under the contract, it came into question whether Mr. Collins had contracted with Fairhurst Developments Limited (FDL), or Mr Fairhurst, the sole owner and operator of FDL. The Court applied an