Construction and Planning Update – February 2026 – top five

Here are our top five for February:

1. Bucking the trend: adjudicator’s decision not enforced

In the Technology and Construction Court Mr Justice Constable refused to enforce an adjudicator’s decision to award £23.9 million, because the referring party was not a party to the construction contract.

A sub-contract was entered into between two unincorporated joint ventures to carry out works on Hinkley Point C nuclear power station. The contractor was BYLOR (an unincorporated joint venture between Bouygues Travaux Publics and Laing O’Rourke Construction Limited). The sub-contractor was EDEL (an unincorporated joint venture between Framatome Limited and Darchem Engineering Limited (Darchem)). The court considered whether Darchem could commence adjudication in its own name.

The court found that BYLOR and EDEL were the only parties to the sub-contract. Darchem was not a party to the sub-contract and was not entitled to commence adjudication.

Comment: had the parties intended to give individual members of BYLOR and EDEL the right to refer disputes to adjudication they could have covered this by express provision in the sub-contract.

Link: Darchem Engineering Ltd v Bouygues Travaux Publics & Anor [2026] EWHC 220 (TCC) (06 February 2026)

2. Fraud changes everything

High Tech Construction Ltd (HTC) applied for summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator’s decision awarding it over £2m for construction works undertaken pursuant to an alleged JCT Design and Build sub-contract. WLP Trading and Marketing Ltd (WLP) resisted enforcement saying that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction because there was no binding JCT contract between the parties and alleged that the adjudicator’s decision was procured by fraud.

HTC’s position was that it had signed a JCT contract with WLP. WLP’s position was that no JCT contract was signed, rather the parties agreed the terms orally and via WhatsApp messages. The adjudicator’s decision could only be enforced if the judge found that it was based on the contract between the parties. There was doubt about this which could not be resolved in the context of a summary judgement application. The judge held that this matter needed to be dealt with by trial.

Comment: it is unusual for fraud to be alleged in the context of adjudication enforcement. However, if there are grounds for alleging it, it is a powerful weapon for resisting enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision. For HTC the refusal of a summary judgment means that rather than an order for payment of the £2m now it has to choose whether to go to trial. Preparing for trial takes time and involves significant costs. As it is difficult to predict the outcome of any case, HTC cannot guarantee going to trial will result in a payment.

Link: High Tech Construction Ltd v WLP Trading and Marketing Ltd [2026] EWHC 152 (TCC) (30 January 2026)

3. Butterfly valves and pantograph cradles

One Hyde Park, a luxury residential development, was completed in 2011. From 2016 onwards serious defects were found in the building. Laing O’Rourke Construction South Ltd (LOR) were the original contractor under a JCT Standard Form of Building Contract (1998 edition). LOR provided a collateral warranty to the freeholder, One Hyde Park Ltd (OHP).

Individual apartments at One Hyde Park are held by tenants under 999-year underleases. OHP alleged defects, including corrosion in the chilled water pipework (CHW), failing butterfly valves in pipework, leaking soldered joints and that the pantograph cradle for cleaning facades had not worked properly for years.

Just a couple of weeks before the trial date, LOR’s solicitors informed the court that LOR was unable to continue financing the defence of proceedings and did not intend to participate in the trial. Subsequently, LOR’s sole shareholder, Laing O’Rourke plc, passed a written resolution to place LOR into creditors’ voluntary liquidation. The judge agreed with OHP’s barrister that this was ‘commercially amoral’.

The court struck out LOR’s defence but did require OHP to prove its case, both as to whether OHP was responsible for the repairs as a freeholder and manager, and as to losses claimed. The court awarded OHP over £35m.

Comment: whether OHP receives any of that award remains to be seen. No doubt potential routes to recovery under the Building Safety Act are being considered.

Link: One Hyde Park Ltd v Laing O’Rourke Construction South Ltd [2026] EWHC 155 (TCC) (02 February 2026)

4. Checking qualifications

Carbon monoxide poisoning kills or seriously injures UK residents every year.

The link below is a reminder of the importance of checking construction workers’ essential qualifications.

In 2015 the HSE acted against a man, IJ, who carried out gas work without being on the Gas Safe Register. IJ told his employer he was registered and continued to act as if he was, even though he had previously been prosecuted by HSE. The company that sent IJ to do gas work on its behalf in 2022 was issued with an HSE immediate prohibition notice. IJ was jailed for 12 months.

Had the two minute check of the Gas Safety Register (GSR) been done by the company, IJ would not have been able to put a 90 year old’s health and home at risk. If you arrange gas work, please check your processes include a check of the GSR.

Link: Man jailed after dangerous and illegal gas work put pensioner at risk – HSE Media Centre

5. Planning – Environmental Delivery Plans

Part 3 of the Planning and Infrastructure Act (PIA) came into force on 18 February. It introduces an ‘Environmental Delivery Plan’ (EDP) process empowering Natural England to prepare EDPs addressing development impacts on protected sites or species. Part 3 allows Natural England to define the EDPs contents, requires the notification and publication of an EDP, the setting administration and monitoring functions, imposing general duties and mandating public authority co-operation, as well as for providing levy regulations and interpretation.

Developers in EDP areas may be required to contribute to a new Nature Restoration Fund, to be used by Natural England for large-scale environmental projects. The PIA empowers the government to impose a surcharge on planning application fees to reflect statutory consultees’ costs, with flexibility to set charges by application type or circumstances.

From 01 April Natural England must publish annual reports on EDPs in force and in preparation, changes to them, and financial information on the levy and conservation measures.