Authorized Developments In Development Legislation: Could 2021 – Authorities, Public Sector


To print this article, all you need to do is register or log in to

1. If the rectification of defects is far from over – what about rot?

Defects in a construction project can be fixed and paid for, but what if the project is spoiled and worth less than if it never had defects? Can damages be reimbursed for these pests? This was one of many questions that the court had to ask itself in a marathon ruling with claims from the construction and sale of solar parks.

The court referred to the judgment of the court of appeal in
Strange vs. Westbury Homes (Holdings) Ltd
the Court of Justice ruling that it is in principle possible for a court to award damages for residual depreciation of a property after the renovation has been satisfactorily completed if it is satisfied that the residual depreciation has been demonstrated by verified evidence.

If the court awards both damages and damages that reflect residual depreciation, i.e. “rot”, it must avoid double counting and assess the damage from rot on the basis that a full and complete remediation according to the conclusions of the court, what defects are present and what work is required to rectify them. In making this assessment it is reasonable to take into account more general market factors such as the nature of the market and risk attitude, reputation and history of the assets, but the existence and extent of alleged harmfulness must be supported by sound evidence. Generalized views or assertions are insufficient.

Toucan Energy Holdings Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd [2021]EWHC 895 (comm)

2. The Court of Appeal reviews the strict limitations on the implication of contractual terms

When a court implies a condition in a contract, that includes something that the parties did not mention. Since this is a possible interference with the parties’ agreement, the implication of terms is severely restricted. The appeals court reviewed the rules in a lawsuit over payment under a design service agreement related to some high-end housing in Singapore.

According to this, the designers had to pay a third of their fee with the remaining amount plus any incentive payment and a commission, which are only due when the purchase contracts for the apartments are signed (or if they are legally concluded). Completion of the apartments was delayed, but by then the real estate market in Singapore had collapsed significantly after the global financial crash. The developer stated that it had tried unsuccessfully to sell the apartments at prices well below the originally expected value and that the apartments were subsequently rented out. The agreement included a timeframe for the apartments to be completed but not for sale, and there was no long deadline for paying the fee, but the designer claimed that the developer (among other things) was violating implicit marketing and selling commitments got the apartments. In rejecting the lawsuit and rejecting the appeal, the appellate court has summarized the relevant principles in tacit terms.

A clause is not tacit if it conflicts with an express contractual clause and an implicit clause must be necessary in the case of an objective assessment of the contract in order to achieve business effectiveness and / or on the basis of the obviousness test. These are alternative tests, but it will be a rare (or unusual) case where only one is satisfied. The business effectiveness test, which is a value judgment, is only fulfilled if the contract does not show any commercial or practical coherence without the term. The obviousness test is only met if the implied term (and exactly what it needs to be unambiguously) is so obvious that it is self-evident and it is imperative that the question of the semi-official viewer be formulated with the greatest care.

The suggestion of a clause is not critically dependent on evidence of the actual intent of the parties. If the question is approached by reference to what the parties would have agreed, it is the answer from fictitious reasonable persons in the position of the parties at the time of the conclusion of the contract.

It is wrong to approach the question in hindsight. Nor is it enough to show that if the parties had foreseen the event that actually occurred, they would have wanted to foresee it, unless it can also be shown that there was only one contractual solution or one of several possible solutions undoubtedly preferred.

The equity of a proposed implicit term is an essential, but not sufficient, requirement for inclusion. A clause should not be included in a detailed commercial contract just because it appears fair or simply because the court believes that the parties would have agreed it if it had been proposed to them. The test, being rigorous, is a necessity, not an adequacy.

The Court also found that when a contract does not expressly or necessarily set a deadline for the performance of a contractual obligation, the law normally provides that it be performed within a reasonable time.

Yoo Design Services Ltd v Iliv Realty PTE Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 560

3. Causality: Did negligent planning justify the demolition of two blocks of houses?

The foundation planning of two terraced houses by consulting engineers was negligent in some respects. Their client, a construction joint venture company, decided to demolish and rebuild both blocks and demanded the full cost, including the remodeling costs, from the engineers. The battlefield in the case was therefore the actual cause. The court found that causality is a highly sensitive field. It is about the consideration of recognized legal principles, but in any case it is a question of fact. In the present case, the question for each of the two units was whether the engineers’ breach of contract was an effective cause of the damage suffered by the plaintiff.

The court also found that a plaintiff performing either a repair or a restoration has an obligation to act appropriately in relation to both primary damage assessment and damage mitigation. And no matter how sensible a plaintiff acts, they can only recover in relation to the damage actually caused by the defendant. Therefore, if part of the plaintiff’s claim arises not from misconduct on the part of the defendant but from an independent reason, the plaintiff cannot claim that part back.

The plaintiff had to prove both that the demolition was necessary due to the negligent foundation planning and that the decision to demolish was reasonable, but could not prove either point. The blocks were statically not intact, not because the foundations designed by the engineers were faulty, but because of the significant amount of faulty work that was not associated with the foundations (and therefore not associated with any fractures by the engineers) carried out by were executed by the service provider. Also, the foundations as designed by the engineers were not the foundations built by subcontractors presented with the wrong drawings.

However, the court awarded small damages for missing connections between pads and beams, negligently neglected by the engineers, which could have been remedied by local renovation work, which was only partially carried out before the demolition.

Beattie Passive Norse Ltd & Anor v Canham Consulting Ltd [2021]
EWHC 1116

4. Government commissions independent review of construction product testing system

The government has commissioned an independent review of the construction product testing system and has appointed Paul Morrell OBE and Anneliese Day QC to lead it. The purpose of the review is to identify systemic problems in the testing of construction products, whether individually or in assemblies, and how test results are used to manage the safety risks posed by these products, and to recommend ways to resolve these problems.

The review will consider the roles of governments, regulators, the UK Accreditation Service (UKAS), conformity assessment bodies, test houses and manufacturers, gathering evidence from these parties and other stakeholders and experts, and from officials from the Department of Housing, Municipalities and Local Government and the Product Safety Office and norms. It will work in parallel and fully with the Grenfell Tower investigation, but will not share responsibility for the Grenfell Tower fire.

The panel of experts will present a report to the Secretary of State for Housing, Municipalities and Local Government in the summer of 2021, and the government will publish the report and a response to it as soon as possible.

5. New code of conduct for external walls and cladding

The government has hired the British Standards Institution to develop a new code of conduct for experts to inspect external walls and cladding.

The consultation on the code ended on May 20, 2021 and the BSI intends to publish the standard in autumn. When completed, the Code will replace aspects of the Consolidated Notice on Exterior Wall Systems originally published in January 2020.


6. Advice on the new property developer tax

The government is deliberating on the design of the new property development tax for residential property before it is incorporated into the Finance Act 2021-22. The tax is one of two revenue-increasing measures to pay the government contribution to the cost of repairing unsafe cladding.

As previously announced, the new tax is temporary and is expected to apply to the largest residential property developers in relation to their UK residential development income.

The consultation runs until July 22, 2021.


Visit us at

Mayer Brown is a global legal services company that includes law firms that are separate entities (the “Mayer Brown Practices”). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both Limited Liability Partnerships based in Illinois, USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales under number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS founded in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its affiliates in Asia; and Tauil & Checker Advogados, a Brazilian law firm affiliated with Mayer Brown. “Mayer Brown” and the Mayer Brown logo are trademarks of Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2020. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This article by Mayer Brown provides information and commentary on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing does not constitute a comprehensive treatment of the subject under discussion and is not intended as legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action in relation to the matters discussed here.