Sav Persad on LinkedIn: Understanding the use of lien bonds on Crown land (2024)

In this article, we break down the Manitoba Court of Appeal’s decision regarding lien bonds on Crown lands. #BLGPublication #ConstructionLaw

In this article, we break down the Manitoba Court of Appeal’s decision regarding lien bonds on Crown lands. #BLGPublication #ConstructionLaw

3

In this article, we break down the Manitoba Court of Appeal’s decision regarding lien bonds on Crown lands. #BLGPublication #ConstructionLaw

New Jersey's Appellate Division recently reinforced that technical deficiencies - big or small -- in a public works contractors' DBE forms submitted as part of its bid will be fatal. All too frequently, bidders' DBE forms contain minor errors, such as a missing signature, that can be easily and swiftly corrected. But, as this recent decision tells us, even if the NJDOT finds those deficiencies to be non-material and decides to waive them, the Federal Government will have the final say. Fair warning - make sure your DBE forms are complete and accurate in every possible way before submitting your bids. I expect the NJDOT to heed the warnings of this experience, and not be forgiving for even the most minor deficiency in DBE forms. A-3501-22 - IN RE UNION PAVING &amp CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. CONTRACT: ROUTE 7 KEARNY DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS, ET AL. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (njcourts.gov)

18

Sometimes Sheriff Court decisions go under the radar somewhat, but there was an important decision published on the Sheriff Appeal Court website on 12th April: Realm Construction Ltd -v- ISG Construction Ltd. It concerned the interpretation of ISG's standard sub-contract terms and conditions insofar as they provide for cross-contractual set-off. Clause 2(21) enabled ISG to deduct any sum which may at any time become due under the sub-contract "or any other agreement". The question was whether a pay less notice could include an illiquid claim (ie, a claim which had not been ascertained) under another contract. The clause referred to "any sum of money recoverable from or payable by the sub-contractor". The Appeal Court said that whilst the plain meaning of the words tend to favour ISG's position, looking at the commercial purpose of the contract and the context of the 1996 Act, the wording did not permit ISG to set-off an illiquid sum on another contract.This may come as a surprise to many. I will watch with interest to see if the decision will be appealed.For some reason the link to the decision is not working but it can be accessed via the Scottish Courts website or on BAIILII.

47

Discover the legal intricacies surrounding retention sums in construction projects, and whether they are treated as trust money. Read our quick recap of a Federal Court decision on this crucial issue for contractors in our latest #CaseSpotlightRead more at https://lnkd.in/gRpR98h4#KeepingItBrief

20

Are you aware of the new changes in the Civil Procedure Rules? On 1 October 2023, a new ‘intermediate track’ was introduced for claims valued between £25,000 - £100,000. The key changes include fixed recoverable costs, strict limits on expert witnesses, and trial duration. This will affect a wide range of property claims, with certain exclusions for residential properties.Understanding these changes is important as they could significantly impact the costs you can recover if you win a case. Read more 👇https://gowlg.co/3RQj8BY

4

Question and Answer session by solicitor Alison Hills the Earl of Lytton's buildingsafetyscheme.org amendment. 1. Will the amendment cause an increase in litigation and delay remediations?2. Isn't the amendment trying to solve a problem that's largely solved? 3. Isn't it too complicated to make determinations because building regulations were unclear? 4. Isn't it better for the government to fund the remediation costs upfront? Write to the Earl of Lytton with your thoughts : LYTTONJ@parliament.uk

10

Mississippi Has a New Retainage Law for Private Projects:For private construction contracts entered into on or after July 1, 2024, the maximum rate of retainage that may be withheld is 5%.Owners, contractors, and first-tier subcontractors can withhold more than 5%, but the cost for that will be payment of interest on the excess amount withheld at the rate of 1% per month.Retainage can be withheld until “final completion”, which is also defined in the new statute.There are some exceptions, including that the new retainage law will not apply to residential construction contracts or contracts for $10,000.00 or less.For the full statute, and its legislative history, go to https://lnkd.in/gQcXuA7c and search for measure S.B. 2762.

10

2 Comments

An intriguing case on an intriguing question! The Supreme Court has decided that a collateral warranty is not a construction contract for the purposes of the Construction Act, which means that you cannot adjudicate over a collateral warranty. Read more about it in this great article by my colleague Mark Castelino#constructionlaw #construction https://lnkd.in/eA8SgsPb

7