0

Download your shortlist

Download All

Resources

Keating Chambers is committed to providing training and development to current and prospective clients. Our resources pages include:
Resource Icon 1

A catalogue of cases in which members have been involved;

Resource Icon 2

Issues of KC Legal Update, a quarterly publication comprising articles and interviews spanning a broad range of practice areas;

Resource Icon 3

Links to leading publications authored by our members; and

Resource Icon 4

Links to recent blogs, webinars and podcasts contributed by our members.

In addition to the regular open events, our barristers also offer in-house training seminars covering a broad range of relevant and topical developments in law. Please contact marketing@keatingchambers.com if you would like to find out more information.

Estate Management v Junior Sammy

29 October 2024

Citation: [2024] UKPC 33

Success for David Thomas KC in the Privy CouncilDavid Thomas KC has successfully argued before the Privy Council that the decision of the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago in EMBD v Junior Sammy Contractors should be upheld.  The Judge, upheld by the Court of Appeal, had granted Junior Sammy summary judgment on seven unpaid interim certificates relating to infrastructure works for a major housing development in Trinidad.  The Respondent government company argued before the Privy Council that the judgment should be set aside because there was reason to believe that the certificates had been obtained fraudulently and in any event Junior Sammy had no right to bring the claim because there had been an absolute assignment of the debt to their bank. In a judgment handed down on 29 October 2024 the Privy Council (Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lord Leggatt, Lord Stephens and Lady Rose) dismissed the allegations of fraud as being of no substance.    However, the judgment gives helpful guidance on the legal principles of the law of assignment and the distinction between an absolute legal assignment and an assignment by way of charge only.  The board approached the matter by considering all…

Counsel

David Thomas KC

A & V Building Solution Ltd v J & B Hopkins Ltd

06 September 2024

Citation: [2024] EWHC 2295 (TCC)

This judgment raised two interesting issues of principle (1) was an adjudicator’s decision as to the liability to pay his fees final or could it be reviewed/reversed by the Court if it found, after trial, that the adjudicator’s substantive decision was wrong, and (2) was a contractual provision for a contractor to pay interest on late payments at 2% above base a substantial remedy for the purposes of the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998.The Court’s answers to these issues were (1) not on current authority and it was not a pleaded issue in this claim, so it was not an appropriate case for the Court to reconsider the question, and (2) no.Background 1.           This was the sixth judgment in the series of a dispute originally referred to adjudication by the claimant. The dispute concerned a subcontract under which the claimant had agreed to carry out plumbing installation works at a university. This judgment was concerned with the liability to pay the adjudicators’ fees and interest.2.           On fees, the central issue was the liability to pay Mr Smith, who had previously ordered the claimant to pay his fees plus interest because it had been unsuccessful in…

Counsel

James Frampton

Peabody Trust v National House-Building Council

06 August 2024

Citation: [2024] EWHC 2063 (TCC)

The limitation period for Peabody’s insurance claim did not start at the contractor’s insolvency in June 2016, but rather when Peabody incurred additional costs to complete the construction project. The court rejected NHBC’s argument that the claim was time-barred, holding that the insured’s cause of action accrues when they actually suffer a loss by having to pay more to complete the works, not at the moment of insolvency.Background1.    In 2015, Catalyst (to whose rights the Claimant has succeeded) engaged Vantage for the design and construction of 175 dwellings, including 88 affordable units (‘Units’), under a Building Contract. The total contract sum was £23,878,482, with £10,358,510 allocated to the Units. The 88 Units were covered under the well-known Buildmark choice contract of insurance issued by NHBC, which covered Catalyst against various construction risks, including contractor insolvency before practical completion.2.    Construction began on 14 December 2015, but Vantage faced financial difficulties, leading to the appointment of administrators on 29 June 2016. Catalyst initiated a tender process in July 2016 to find a new contractor and engaged Stack London Limited…

Counsel

Harry Smith