Resources

James Frampton (instructed by Archor LLP) acted for the Appellant (“RBH”) in this appeal, in which the Court of Appeal made notable observations in respect of two key aspects of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (“HGCRA 1996”): the “residential occupier exception” and the requirements for a valid pay less notice.BackgroundRBH is a building contractor who Mr and Mrs James employed to provide site and project management services in relation to a large luxury house known as Ferndown in Saunton, North Devon. A contract was agreed orally, through which RBH was to be paid a fee for supervision and project management. This arrangement was then modified such that RBH would be reimbursed any costs incurred in procuring sub-contractors and materials.Following disputes, RBH ceased work around April 2024, by which time it had been paid £1,310,039.04. In November 2024, RBH made an application for payment of £663,016.16. Mr and Mrs James responded with a “withholding notice” stating their intention to withhold payment of £633,016.16 and setting out their reasons for doing so.RBH proceeded with an adjudication on the basis that the “withholding notice” was an invalid pay…

Following a lengthy trial, Mrs Justice Joanna Smith DBE has comprehensively dismissed the claims brought against the Gambling Commission by Northern & Shell plc and The New Lottery Company Limited (TNLC). The claims challenged the Gambling Commission’s conduct of the Competition for the 4th UK National Lottery Licence and modifications made to the Licence following its award to Allwyn in 2022. This litigation arises out of what the Claimants describe as “the most financially significant procurement process in UK history”.This is the third successful outcome for the Gambling Commission, following earlier proceedings brought by Camelot UK Lotteries Ltd and International Game Technology Plc. Sarah Hannaford KC and Rachael O’Hagan (alongside Rose Grogan KC, Barney McCay and Monty Fynn), instructed by Hogan Lovells, acted for the Gambling Commission.A copy of the judgment can be found here.

This judgment concerns certain preliminary issues in an ongoing contractual dispute between an oil field operator and a supplier of tubular products relating to allegedly defective tubing used in offshore water injection wells in Ghana. The claimant alleges that the tubing supplied by the defendant was defective and seeks over US$257 million in damages. The preliminary issues dispute was largely concerned with when the contract was formed and which terms applied. The claimant argued that the contract was based on its purchase order and standard terms (albeit amended for the purposes of an earlier order), while the defendant contended its own general conditions were incorporated.The court held that the contract was concluded on 25 November 2008 when the defendant returned a signed purchase order to the claimant. The court therefore held that the contract was governed by the claimant’s amended terms. The court accepted that: i) the defendant’s covering letter of 25 November 2008 stated that it also enclosed the defendant’s own standard terms and conditions in the associated envelope; ii) the defendant did in fact enclose its standard terms and conditions in the envelope; iii) the…