Philip Dupres

𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝘀𝗰𝗼𝗽𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝙈𝙪𝙧𝙛𝙞𝙩𝙩 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲 The Court of Appeal ([2024] EWCA Civ 467) has upheld the decision of Lieven J in 𝘾𝙖𝙡𝙙𝙬𝙚𝙡𝙡 𝙫 𝙎𝙎𝙇𝙐𝙃𝘾 [2023] EWHC 2053 (Admin) that an Enforcement Notice enforcing against a material change of use cannot require the removal of operational development which is the “source of or fundamental to the material change of use”. So, for operational development to be within the scope of an Enforcement Notice enforcing against a material change of use, it must be subordinate or secondary to, the change of use. The 𝙈𝙪𝙧𝙛𝙞𝙩𝙩 principle cannot be used to justify the removal of a building or other operational development which is a “separate development in its own right”. Zack Simons and Nick Grant appeared for the Secretary of State. For more information, please follow this link - https://bit.ly/4a5EhO2 #PlanningLaw #GreenBelt

46

4 Comments

3PB's Nick Kaplan acted as Junior Counsel for Hexagon Housing Association in their recent Court of Appeal case which considered the termination provisions under the JCT form of contract. The Court of Appeal handed down judgment last week in Providence Building Services Ltd v Hexagon Housing Association Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 962, and its decision is likely to come as a significant surprise to many in the industry. The case concerned the circumstances in which a Contractor can terminate for the repetition of an employer’s default under clause 8.9.4 of the JCT Design and Build Form of Contract 2016, a standard form contract in use throughout the nation. The Judgment is likely to be significant for the foreseeable future given that the recently published 2024 edition of the same form of Contract uses the same language. The issue between the Parties was whether, in order to terminate for repetition of a default under clause 8.9.4, the Contractor first had to acquire the right to terminate for continuation of the original default under clause 8.9.3. The Court of Appeal concluded that on the natural meaning of the language used in clause 8.9.4, there was no need for a right to terminate under 8.9.3 to arise before the Contractor could terminate for repetition of a default under 8.9.4. Nick, commenting on this decision, said: “One of the most surprising features of this case is that the issue has not previously come before the Court, despite the fact that the relevant wording of clause 8.9 has been substantially the same since the JCT published the 2005 edition of the Design and Build form of Contract 19 years ago." "It is likely that the issue has not arisen before because either the industry had understood that the clause meant what Hexagon said it meant (a reading with which the adjudicator and the first instance judge agreed) or considered the clause to be sufficiently ambiguous that it was not worth the risk of terminating under 8.9.4, unless the right to terminate under 8.9.3 had first arisen. It is important to note that the Court of Appeal’s decision makes it substantially easier for contractors to terminate, than the reading argued for by Hexagon and accepted by both the Adjudicator and the Judge." Nick concluded that: "I believe that this Court of Appeal’s decision has the potential to have very wide-ranging implications, as it may be viewed by contractors as giving the green light to terminate in circumstances where it was previously considered too risky to do so. As a result, we may now see an opening of the floodgates, with contractors deciding to terminate instead of persisting with loss-making projects in a construction market with notoriously tight margins." "It is likely that going forward, employers will want to amend the standard wording of clause 8.9 in light of this judgement. In the meantime, employers with ongoing projects operating under unamended JCT terms will have to look very carefully at their payment processes.”

27

Undertakings are an established feature of the legal landscape. The courts have recognised them as vital in conveyancing transactions and of much wider application. Richard Senior has undertaken a review of the law relating to lawyers’ undertakings. #professionalindemnity #undertakings #conveyancing

14

The recent Court of Appeal decision in Houssein & ors v London Credit Limited & ors has confirmed the applicable test in determining whether a default interest rate constitutes an unenforceable penalty. The decision also considers whether the standard interest rate can still be recovered following default if the default rate is not enforceable. In this article we take a closer look at the decision and the key takeaways for lenders. Read more here: https://lnkd.in/eNDG9B5X With Nick Curling, Clare Stothard and Claire Kershaw

27

The M&A Playbook for Regional Law Firms: Lawfront Buys Slater Heelis Another smart move by Lawfront, as Slater Heelis is a first-class regional firm. I remember meeting their managing partner, Chris Bishop, in Manchester a couple years ago—a decent man who totally gets culture in law firms. In our recent survey on law firm M&A and Q4 Newsletter, we covered what they were doing in the market with other PE-backed firms. I was unusually bold in saying, “My prediction is that we will see the major players in private equity continuing to use this playbook of making a law firm more valuable by buying platform firms with a clear “buy to build” strategy.”. I got it right for a change, but being candid was an easy one to call. Overall, we can see that consolidation in the legal sector is becoming a coherent and properly funded strategy, and as private equity steps up its investment, it is bound to gather more momentum, particularly around mid-sized law firms. I am sure there will be further acquisitions by Lawfront, but more importantly, by other strategic players in this sector. The obvious question is: What is their end game? Definitely for another post! https://zurl.co/f6no

1