Previous issues:

A recent decision in the Hong Kong Court of Appeal shows that it is necessary to check for, and remove, any inconsistency between contractual documents, even if the contracting parties think they are unlikely to be of any significance.

Alliance contracting has become increasingly common in Australia and the United Kingdom and now there is growing interest in Hong Kong. Properly understood, alliancing adds to the range of project delivery methods available to the public and private sectors although parties should remain cautious about entering into an alliance arrangement if this is not what they intend.

It is generally accepted that construction managers are not 'on the hook' for the time, cost and quality outcomes of a project, however, the extent of the obligations of construction managers has recently been reviewed in an English case, Great Eastern Hotel Company Ltd v John Laing Construction Limited, which decision potentially extends the liability of a construction manager in circumstances where its actions result in loss and damage.

The distinction between penalties and liquidated damages has been developed by the courts to reconcile two competing public policy considerations – freedom of contract on the one hand and the prevention of unconscionable and oppressive conduct on the other.

A recent decision by the Supreme Court of Queensland, in which it refused to acknowledge that a binding contract existed between parties, underlies the importance of closing out all issues in contractual negotiations.

A recent decision in the case of Clinton Engineering Ltd v. Tridant Engineering Co Ltd represents a timely reminder of the inherent risks involved in stopping work in reliance on being able to prove that a repudiatory breach has occurred.