Last updateTue, 24 Feb 2015 5pm



Richard Booth reports on a recent Supreme Court judgment highlighting the need for clarity of drafting

The Supreme Court handed down its unanimous judgment in MT Højgaard A/S v E.ON Climate & Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Ltd on 3 August 2017. The case concerned liability for €26.5m of works to rectify defects in foundations at E.ON’s Robin Rigg wind farm in the Solway Firth, which were designed and built by MT Højgaard A/S (MTH).

Rick Brown and Victoria Cowan examine recent case law on security for costs post judgment

Security for costs orders are regularly sought at an early stage of a claim by defendants seeking to protect their ability to recover costs from an unsuccessful claimant, but, until recently, there has been limited case law relating to whether they can be applied for post judgment. This was discussed at length in the recent case of Republic of Djibouti v Boreh [2016].

Jenny Salmon reports on MT Højgaard A/S v E.ON and the lessons to be learned

Contracts are the foundation-stone for the legal rights and responsibilities of the parties to any construction project. However, in the heat of the negotiations, the desire to conclude the deal and progress the project can mean the contractual documentation ends up containing ambiguous or inconsistent terms, which often give rise to disputes when things go wrong.

Anthony Woolich, Simon Burden and Jaime van der Eb consider the implications of the Bribery Act and the Proceeds of Crime Act for the ‘innocent’ company

The Bribery Act 2010 came into force on 1 July 2011. Readers will doubtless be aware that the Act creates a number of criminal offences on the payment and acceptance of bribes, this includes a new strict liability offence for failure of a commercial organisation to prevent bribery, subject to a defence of having in place adequate procedures. In this article we consider the legal implications of bribery where an employee of a company (the ‘briber’) has paid a bribe to the employee of a company (the ‘victim’) and the victim has entered into a contract (the ‘underlying contract’) as a result.

Antony Woolich and Joseph Botham analyse the impact and effect of the new rules on horizontal co-operation agreements

The European Commission (the Commission) adopted new rules on horizontal co-operation agreements on 14 December 2010. The adoption of the rules came at the end of a process that saw the circulating of a questionnaire to the member states and a consultation with stakeholders in 2008, and a public consultation that took place in May and June 2010.