ONLINE EVENT: Contracts, managing supply chain issues and the role of directors

As the project progresses, it is important to continually monitor the contractor’s performance.  Any one or more of the items below can be early warning signs that the contractor is in financial difficulty, and that further actions may be necessary:

• Decrease in labour or contractor’s personnel on site, and/or rapid turnover of contractor’s personnel
• Slowdown in progress on site
• Plant, equipment or materials suddenly disappearing from site for no apparent reason – unpaid subcontractors may unilaterally decide to remove items from site regardless of their contractual rights to do so
• An increasing number of defects and reduction in the quality of the contractor’s work
• The contractor seeking changes in the payment arrangements, and in particular early payments
• The contractor making spurious claims or contra charges
• The contractor seeking assignment of its benefit of the building contract
• Late filing of accounts by the contractor at Companies House
• Unsatisfied court judgements against the contractor
• Subcontractors and suppliers not being paid or being paid late
• Rumours in the press, in the industry, on site or elsewhere regarding the solvency of the contractor
• Unusual visits to site, for example from the contractor’s senior management or other personnel who had not previously been present or are not expected to be present
• Increasingly aggressive behaviour by the contractor
• The contractor’s parent company or another company within the contractor’s group displaying any of the above signs

Potentially no.

If an employer is not put on notice that the circumstances of a worker or agency worker are such that they ought to be self-isolating, by either the worker or agency worker themselves or another member of staff, then there ought to be a reasonable excuse, and potentially, no fixed penalty notice will be issued.

You had until 23 April 2020 to submit your return in order to be considered for eligibility.

As long as you can demonstrate that you have exercised reasonable care in determining status you have discharged your obligations in that respect. However, if you are unable to demonstrate this, you may as the end user client be responsible for the contractor’s tax and NIC’s.

The Act was obviously subject to much debate and criticism as the Bill passed through Parliament. It is difficult to properly assess any gaps until after the necessary secondary legislation has been published and comes into force (along with the remainder of the Act), but some of the likely issues include:

• The impact on the insurance market, and the (lack of) availability and increased cost of insurance in light of the provisions of the Act
• How the introduction of retrospective claims will affect the market, both in relation to how parties might go about trying to prove matters which are 30 years old, but also the lack of certainty for those potentially on the receiving end of these claims which they previously had by virtue of the Limitation Act provisions
• Whether the definition of higher risk buildings is correct, or will require some refinement.

The Martlet v Mulalley case provides some useful observations and clarifications, for example that designers cannot necessarily rely on a ‘lemming’ defence that they were simply doing what others were doing at the time, that ‘waking watch’ costs are generally recoverable, and commentary on certain specific Building Regulations. The judgment however made clear that much of the case turned on its specific facts, so it is useful from the perspective of providing some insight as to how the Courts will deal with cladding disputes in future, rather than setting significant precedents to be followed.