CASE SUMMARIES : Building
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The following notes of judgments were prepared by the reporters of the All England Law Reports.
Building
West Faulkner Associates (a firm) v Newham LBC; CA (Balcombe, Hirst, Simon Brown LJJ); 10 Nov 1994.
Under cl 25(1)(b) of the JCT standard form building contract for use by local authorities (1977 revn) which enabled an architect to give a contractor notice if he "fails to proceed regularly and diligently with the works", the contractor had to proceed with the works both regularly and diligently and in appropriate circumstances could be dismissed the site if he failed to do either. While there was a measure of overlap between the two words, "regularly" suggested regular daily attendance with sufficientstaff and resources to make substantial progress, and" diligently" suggested a need to apply them industriously and efficiently to that end. Taken together they imposed an obligation on the contractor to proceed continuously, industrious l y and efficiently with appropriate physical resources so as to progress the works steadily towards completion in accordance with contractual requirements.
Richard Ferneyhough QC, Adrian Williamson (Alastair Thomson & Ptrs) for the appellants; Bruce Mauleverer QC, Kim Franklin (Fenwich Elliott) for the respondents.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments