Legal Articles

JCT 2016 construction contracts – what has changed?

Home / Knowledge base / JCT 2016 construction contracts – what has changed?

Posted by Michael Hiscock on 16 June 2016

Michael Hiscock - Construction Lawyer
Michael Hiscock Partner - Head of Construction

It does not seem 5 minutes, let alone 5 years, since we were last examining the ‘new’ JCT approach, in that case arising from new legislation. This time round, the JCT has taken the opportunity to pull in a number of key cases and pieces of relevant legislation to their updated contract suite, for which they have initially (rather cautiously in my view) only released the minor works family.

There are a number of interesting changes, some more obvious than others, but all relevant for suppliers, users and investors connected to the construction industry:

  • The due and final dates for payment have been moved back by virtue of specific interim valuation dates, which are intended to make a back to back payment structure through the supply chain easier to achieve, but (as well as facing the Grove v Balfour Beatty case risk when using payment schedules) also have the effect of slowing down cashflow slightly.
  • One benefit of this new structure is that contractors are encouraged to (but not obliged to) apply for payment, with new clauses entitling them to do so, making that the default payment notice (if compliant) and creating some extra breathing space in the payment timetable to factor that in.
  • The post practical completion interim payment regime has reduced from two month to one month payments.
  • Notified sums that are due and finally payable, but remain unpaid, are recoverable as a debt – presumably in light of the ISG v Seevic line of authority. 
  • Recognition and application of CDM 2015
  • The insurance clauses have a new option of insuring existing structures “by other means”, designed to help domestic homeowners and commercial tenants. Linked to that is a new recognition that those policies may impose limitations that impact on the JCT’s previously used global indemnity wording.
  • The employer has a choice at his sole discretion to demand defects are repaired or to impose an appropriate payment deduction (consistent with other JCT contracts and see the Mul v Hutton Construction case)
  • For those dealing with the public sector, the 2015 Regulations have expanded the termination scenarios, demanded transparency for Freedom of Information, and require 30 day payment to the supply chain.

We wait to see the new loss and expense mechanism (and other changes) when JCT releases the remaining 2016 contracts.

About the author

Michael Hiscock

Partner - Head of Construction

Michael is a specialist in construction and engineering procurement, advising on a wide variety of works contracts.

Michael Hiscock

Michael is a specialist in construction and engineering procurement, advising on a wide variety of works contracts.

Recent articles

30 July 2020 Rethinking the landlord / tenant relationship

We have been following the travails of the high street for over 12 months where changing shopping habits, business rates and rent increases have been contributing to a growing strain on many landlord / tenant relationships. The Covid-19 pandemic has not only turned a bad situation critical for many retailers and hospitality venues but has also turned the spotlight on the wider commercial sector too. Almost all businesses operating across the country have suffered financially to a greater or lesser extent as result of the economic downturn precipitated by the imposition of lockdown in March.

Read article
30 July 2020 Bankrupts fail in claim to have interests in land revested in them

The claim by Mr and Mrs Brake (Brake v Swift), heard in the High Court in May, to have a cottage and adjacent land revested in them under Section 283A of the Insolvency Act 1986, was set against a background of convoluted litigation extending over a number of years, described by Matthews HHJ as ‘complex’. The claimants had been made bankrupt in 2015 and the matter before the Court concentrated on whether or not the property concerned was, indeed, the claimants’ principal residence at the time of the bankruptcy.

Read article
29 July 2020 Remote witnessing of wills – a sign of the times

The law governing how a will is witnessed dates back to 1837 and for good reason. The requirement for two people (neither of whom can inherit from the will they are witnessing) to be physically present at the signing of a will is designed to, among other things, prevent fraud and the exercise of undue influence. That is, until the Covid-19 pandemic struck.

Read article
How can we help?
01926 732512