Construction and Planning Update – June 2026 – Top Five

Here are our top five for June:

1. Scorchio!

From a TV show in the 1990s, this word is making a comeback in our office. On a serious note, for construction workers the heat can be very dangerous. For our construction company and site manager readers, please have a look at the HSE link below.

Link : Risks to workers from extreme heat must be managed – HSE Media Centre

2. It’s not fair! A rare refusal to enforce an adjudication decision.

A Trust and a contractor entered an amended NEC4 Option A contract for the construction of a new surgical theatre block. A dispute arose concerning the timing of provision of the permanent mains water supply (the Supply). The Trust accepted that it was responsible for the Supply but argued that there wasn’t any contractual obligation to supply it by a specific date.

The adjudicator decided that the Trust should pay the contractor £1,655,385.49. The decision was based on the compensation event at clause 60.1 (3)

“The Client does not provide something which it is to provide by the date shown on the Accepted Programme… ”.

Whilst there was an Accepted Programme at Appendix 3 of the contract, it did not contain any reference to the Supply. The contractor submitted that the delay should be assessed by reference to the contractor’s later, unaccepted programmes which did refer to the Supply. The Trust acknowledged that later programmes were discussed at meetings but noted that the contractual mechanism for acceptance was not operated; the Appendix 3 programme remained the only Accepted Programme.

The adjudicator decided that Contract Programme Rev3 became an Accepted Programme, setting a date for the provision of the Supply. Failure to supply by that date was a compensation event.

The contractor applied for summary judgement. This was refused:

“In summary, the Adjudicator determined that there was a compensation event within the meaning of clause 60.1(3) because the Trust had not provided the water main by the dates set out in a revised programme which neither party said was an Accepted Programme. By contrast, the Accepted Programme contained no such dates. This startling conclusion was clearly material to the Decision, and it should have been put to the parties for comment. It was a breach of the rules of natural justice not to do so: the Adjudicator went off on a “frolic” by, in effect, inventing a case for PML which he considered to be superior to that which they actually advanced.”

Link to case : Premier Modular Ltd v Maidstone And Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust [2026] EWHC 1404 (TCC) (10 June 2026)

3. Disclosure of evidence – hand over of phones to an Independent Reviewer

This case is a reminder to have separate devices for personal and business data. The fact that a device contains personal data will not be a good defence to an order to hand it over in litigation:

“Previous judges have already considered the fact that the relevant material (if any) will be mixed with personal and irrelevant material..”.

And referred to a previous case:

“… There is no risk of private information which is immaterial to this litigation coming into the hands of either the claimants or the claimants’ solicitors because the order contemplates that the images, once taken, will be held by the independent computer specialist …

… the respondent has the added protection of knowing that all ultimately that is sought by the claimants and their solicitors is that the images obtained be then subjected to the search parameters that have been used for the purpose of generating disclosure in this case with the result that the claimants’ solicitors ultimately will never gain access to all the material that is imaged but will only gain access to the documents which, by definition, are material to this litigation because they are identified as responsive when tested against the criteria identified in the DRD [Disclosure Review Document]…”

Comment:

Even if the personal data is just family photos and the antics of family pets, few people would want to share those, even with an Independent Reviewer.

A note from our employment department colleagues:

“Generally, employers cannot require the use of personal devices without consent or an explicit contractual agreement.”

Link to case : Lloyds Developments Ltd v Accor HotelServices UK Ltd & Ors [2026] EWHC 1522 (TCC) (19 June 2026)

4. A good night’s sleep?

In a lengthy judgement, the Technology and Construction Court held that the cladding on the Ibis London Wembley hotel poses an intolerable fire risk. HHJ Stephen Davies found the Landlord (LPC) liable to remove and replace the cladding under both the lease’s “good condition” covenant and the legal obligations clause engaging duties under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

The court granted specific performance compelling removal of the cladding within six months and full recladding within 18 months.

For the property specialists among our readers, the tenant’s arguments based on the implied covenant against derogation from grant were not successful.

Comment: the judgement is significant – although hotels fall outside parts of the Building Safety Act regime, tenants can use lease‑based arguments. It is good to see the court ordering swift removal of cladding that creates an intolerable risk. The judgement mentions that hotel guests may not be in a condition to follow fire escape directions or may not have taken their fire bearings. The Grenfell tragedy reminds us to check for the nearest fire escape in any unfamiliar buildings.

5. Challenging planning enforcement decisions- an uphill battle?

The Vale of White Horse District Council saw off a claim that it had not properly considered whether enforcement action should be taken in relation to licensed waste management on a former coal yard. The court considered the enforcement powers and law relating to challenging a decision not to use the powers.

Link to case : R (Binbin) v Vale of White Horse District Council