Fenwick Elliott Annual Review 2006/2007

Karen Gidwani reviews recent court decisions which shed light on whether enforcement of adjudications is now a foregone conclusion.

Adjudication is, of course, only one type of dispute resolution. In a paper prepared for the RICS, Nicholas Gould outlines the various options and suggests some of the advantages and pitfalls offered by them.

As Yann Guermonprez explains, the procedural or “curial law” which governs an international arbitration can have a tremendous impact on the proceedings.

Nicholas Gould discusses the establishment of dispute boards and focuses on selecting, nominating, appointing and establishing dispute boards.

Many articles have been written about the duties and potential liabilities of all those involved in construction projects, but very little has been written about the duties of the in-house professional. As Victoria Russell explains, that of course does not mean that no such duties are owed.

In an article explaining some of the pitfalls concerning letters of intent, Matthew Needham-Laing starts by considering the key points everyone should consider before signing a letter of intent.

As Jeremy Glover says, Matthew Needham-Laing concluded that, notwithstanding HHJ Coulson QC’s words of comfort, in an ideal world, there would be no letters of intent. One of the reasons for this was demonstrated by the recent case of ERDC Group Limited v Brunel University where a dispute arose as to the basis upon which the contractor should be paid for works carried out under a letter of intent.

Jeremy Glover considers another case involving a letter of intent.

One of the major criticisms of the Woolf reforms to the litigation procedure was the front-loading of costs brought about by the pre-action protocols. One part of this new regime is the increasing need for pre-action disclosure. Victoria Russell discusses what this can mean.

Novation is one of those issues where care is always required. Matthew Needham-Laing sets out some of the points to look out for.