The construction industry will continue to face rising material prices, volatile markets and inflation. Disputes go hand in hand with rising prices as projects become much more difficult to complete on time and within budget. However, contractors can take some steps to protect themselves in a volatile market and manage liabilities and disputes if they arise.

On 16 December 2021, the PFI Centre of Excellence issued its Phase 1 PFI Expiry Health and Learnings Report. In this BCLP Insight, Jennifer Varley considers how these development areas may impact both the public and private sector.

The final account is normally a wrap-up of the contractor’s valid claims for extra payment. It’s particularly helpful if claims were not submitted or assessed as works progressed. So, what happens if the contract doesn’t have a final account procedure but there are claims outstanding once the works are finished? Can a final account procedure be implied under section 110(3) of the Construction Act 1996This was one of the questions the TCC faced in the recent case of JSM Construction v Western Power.

Legal commentators forecast the demise of ‘smash and grab’ adjudications following the first instance decision in Grove v S&T. Upholding that decision, the Court of Appeal decided that an unsuccessful party to a ‘smash and grab adjudication’ can commence a separate adjudication seeking a decision as to the true value of its interim payment application. An employer can now adjudicate to recoup an overpayment without waiting for the next payment cycle (which was the position before the decision in S&T v Grove). Does the decision herald an end to ‘smash and grab’ adjudications? Will contractors be deterred because  the employer can more quickly reclaim the overpaid amount? Not likely. The benefit to contractors of the ‘smash and grab’ adjudication is more than a temporary windfall. It offers the contractor cash flow, negotiating power in final account negotiations and puts the burden on the employer to demonstrate why the contractor is not entitled to those sums in an adjudication as to the ‘true value’ of the interim payment. So what, if anything, will anything change after S&T v Grove?