Construction and Planning Update – August 2025 top five

Here are our top five for August:

1. The Arbitration Act 2025 is now in force

Significant reforms to the Arbitration Act 1996 took effect on 1 August 2025. These reforms stemmed from the Law Commission’s recommendations and include:

1. a statutory duty for arbitrators to disclose circumstances that could reasonably give rise to doubts about their impartiality;
2. default governing law rules for arbitration agreements and formal recognition of emergency arbitrators;
3. enhanced immunity protections for arbitrators; and
4. broader powers granted to the courts.

The reforms aim to modernise arbitration and they apply to arbitrations and related court proceedings commenced on or after 1 August 2025.

Link: Arbitration Act 2025

2. August cases in the Technology and Construction Court

Just two cases In August so we are covering both. An application for leave to appeal was made in relation to a domestic building works judgement made in August 2024. The appellant claimed:

1. the judgement contained a finding not consistent with the civil engineering and structural expert’s report; and
2. the court failed to take account of the appellant’s submissions on costs and VAT. The appellant argued the judgment was “unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings in the lower court”.
   The court examined the position and did not give leave to appeal. The judgement is a reminder that “……if the judge is to differ from the view of the expert on such an issue, then an explanation of the reason for doing so must be given”.

Link: Azizi v Dama Construction Ltd [2025] EWHC 2213 (TCC) (29 August 2025)

The second case was an application to enforce the decision of an adjudicator. The parties referred the court to 19 authorities in relation to the principle that decisions will not be enforced if in breach of natural justice or an excess of jurisdiction. The Defendant asserted that by deciding new rates and a new measurement without consultation with the parties to the adjudication, the adjudicator went too far in deciding an alternative way to value aspects of the payment application. The position of the Claimant was summarised by the judge: “In short, the Defendant “is simply scrabbling about for reasons to avoid payment”. The court found no breach of natural justice and enforced the adjudicator’s decision. The judgement reminds us that: “… these cases are invariably fact sensitive. It is only in an exceptional case that the court would consider a breach to be sufficiently serious that the court would decline to enforce a decision.”

Link: Clegg Food Projects Ltd v Prestige Car Direct Properties Ltd [2025] EWHC 2173 (TCC) (19 August 2025)

3. Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA) in the Court of Appeal last month

The judgements in Triathlon Homes LLP v Stratford Village Development Partnership and Adriatic Land 5 Ltd v Long Leaseholders at Hippersley Point differ in their treatment of the BSA, in relation to retrospectivity and the reallocating of liabilities for historic building safety defects.

In Triathlon, link here, the Court of Appeal interpreted the BSA’s remediation provisions, concluding that s.124 of the BSA conferred a new, primarily non-fault-based remedy, allowing orders to be made in respect of costs incurred both before and after the legislation was in force. The court found the BSA justified a retrospective construction to fulfil its aims. This approach recognises the policy of shifting financial responsibility from leaseholders to those responsible for building safety defects.

Link to s.124: Building Safety Act 2022

In contrast, Adriatic Land 5, link here, reflected differences amongst the Court. The lead judgment, by Newey LJ, said BSA Part 5 is intended to operate retrospectively and prospectively. He determined Schedule 8 prevents the recovery of service charges in respect of certain costs incurred after it came into force (28 June 2022), it does prevent service charge entitlements already accrued by that date—even if the charge had not yet been paid. Thus, no service charges are payable for relevant costs after commencement, but landlords retain rights to recover charges for costs incurred beforehand. This rejected a “blanket” effect that would reopen settled matters. Newey LJ found that the legislative language lacked the necessary clarity to override presumptions in relation to accrued rights. But he acknowledged that where Parliament’s intention is clear and justified by strong policy imperatives, greater retrospective reach may be found.

Link to Schedule 8: Building Safety Act 2022

4. Planning

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government issued a press release on 26 August trumpeting the claim that 100,000 new homes had been speeded along the build pathway by removing blocks in the planning system. This gain having been achieved via the use of the ‘New Homes Accelerator’, which addresses the challenges to development on many consented sites nationwide. The Accelerator is a specialised programme designed to cut barriers to development. It provides local authorities with additional planning capacity and removes regulatory hurdles. A further 12,000 are claimed to be receiving imminent assistance in the North West, Somerset and the South East.

5. Building Safety in Wales

The Building Safety (Wales) Bill consultation has now closed. The Bill now goes on for consideration by the Senedd Cymru (Welsh Parliament). If enacted it will cover registration of certain buildings at least 11m in height or with at least 5 storeys. Registration is with a building safety authority (a local authority). There will be new functions for fire and rescue authorities, duties to manage fire and structural safety, and a regime for enforcement.

Link: Building Safety (Wales) Bill