Our collective thoughts

Posted January 21, 2026 | Published in Contracts & documentation

The ICE Payment Notice Dispute Model Adjudication Procedure: Worth considering? [1]

In this blog, Claire King reviews the ICE’s recently published Payment Notice Dispute Model Adjudication Procedure, which deals specifically with smash and grab adjudications. She examines the Procedure in closer detail and reviews some of its key features, most notably its capped Adjudicator fees.

Late Payments: not such thin ice after all [3]

In August 2024, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in which it held that a contractor was entitled to terminate its employment based on just two late payments, each of which was rectified within 14 days. In our blog at the time, we explained how the decision was a stark warning to employers, with the Court of Appeal itself noting how the decision left them on thin ice in respect of late payments. However, the Supreme Court has now overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision and restored the leeway afforded to employers under the JCT contract.

Retentions: carry on consulting? [5]

In her latest blog, Claire King analyses the proposals made by the current Government in its recent consultation on late payments focussing specifically on its plans for retentions. Will action be taken this time and do the proposals look promising?

A new tool in town? The NEC Conflict Avoidance Option [6]

The NEC’s new Conflict Avoidance Clauses, for use with the NEC4 ECC form, were announced earlier this year and are intended to prevent the escalation of “disagreements” into “disputes”. In this blog, Claire King reviews how they are meant to operate in the context of contracts that are already subject to statutory adjudication and examines the extent to which parties should be adding them to their dispute resolution toolkit.

Can the First-tier Tribunal go on a frolic of its own? [7]

For anyone litigating claims in the FTT, the recent decision of the Upper Tribunal in the appeal of Monier Road Limited v Alexander Blomfield and Other Leaseholders [2025] UKUT 157 (LC) is required reading. It clearly sets out the limits on the FTT’s power to raise new points during proceedings and confirms that FTT proceedings in England and Wales are adversarial, and not inquisitorial.

In this article, Ben Smith, with contributions from Oliver Weisemann and Millie Nash, examines the judgment and discusses the key legal implications for those operating in the construction and property sectors.

The Supreme Court Judgment ‘URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd’ – a landmark decision for the construction industry [9]

The UK Supreme Court yesterday handed down its much-anticipated judgment in the case of URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2025] UKSC 21. The appeal was heard by a full panel of 7 justices who dismissed URS’s appeal on all 4 grounds. The judgment runs to 88 pages and is a must read for anyone working in the construction sector.

In this article, Ben Smith, Huw Wilkins and Paul Smylie examine the judgment and discuss the key issues arising and practical implications for those likely to be affected, including developers, contractors, consultants and insurers.

Practising Proper Payment Processes: Payment and Pay Less Notices [10]

Lucinda Robinson reports on the recent decision in Placefirst Construction Ltd v CAR Construction (North East) Ltd, which provides current TCC guidance on payment and pay less notices. It also serves as an example of the confusion caused when contractual payment processes are not followed properly.