<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
	
	
	<rss 
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
     xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/"
     
     version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>Building Law Monthly RSS Feed</title>
      <link>http://www.i-law.com</link>
      <description>The latest content from  Building Law Monthly</description>
      
		
		    <item>
         <title>Breach did not deprive innocent party of a substantial part of the benefit of the contract</title>
         <link>http://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=323523</link>
         <description>Breach did not deprive innocent party of a substantial part of the benefit of the contract. In Telford Homes (Creekside)</description>
         <pubDate>Fri, 14 Jun 2013 13:53:42 GMT</pubDate>
         <guid>http://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=323523</guid>
         <dc:date>2013-06-14T13:53:42.0Z</dc:date>
      </item>
		    <item>
         <title>The meaning of &#8216;dispute&#8217; and the role of good faith</title>
         <link>http://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=323522</link>
         <description>The meaning of &#8216;dispute&#8217; and the role of good faith. In TSG Building Services plc v South Anglia Housing Ltd</description>
         <pubDate>Fri, 14 Jun 2013 13:53:41 GMT</pubDate>
         <guid>http://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=323522</guid>
         <dc:date>2013-06-14T13:53:41.0Z</dc:date>
      </item>
		    <item>
         <title>Adjudication and Limitation Periods</title>
         <link>http://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=323521</link>
         <description>Adjudication and Limitation Periods. In Aspect Contracts (Asbestos) Ltd v Higgins Construction plc [2013] EWHC 1322 (TCC), [2013] All ER</description>
         <pubDate>Fri, 14 Jun 2013 13:53:41 GMT</pubDate>
         <guid>http://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=323521</guid>
         <dc:date>2013-06-14T13:53:41.0Z</dc:date>
      </item>
		    <item>
         <title>Adjudication, Convention rights and article one of the first protocol</title>
         <link>http://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=321961</link>
         <description>Adjudication, Convention rights and article one of the first protocol. In Whyte and Mackay Ltd v Blyth &amp; Blyth Consulting Engineers</description>
         <pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2013 10:16:25 GMT</pubDate>
         <guid>http://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=321961</guid>
         <dc:date>2013-05-13T10:16:25.0Z</dc:date>
      </item>
		    <item>
         <title>The scope of the penalty clause jurisdiction</title>
         <link>http://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=321960</link>
         <description>The scope of the penalty clause jurisdiction. The High Court of Australia in Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking</description>
         <pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2013 10:16:25 GMT</pubDate>
         <guid>http://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=321960</guid>
         <dc:date>2013-05-13T10:16:25.0Z</dc:date>
      </item>
		    <item>
         <title>Nuisance claim not independent of statute</title>
         <link>http://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=321959</link>
         <description>Nuisance claim not independent of statute. In Barratt Homes Ltd v Dwr Cymru Cyfyngedig (Welsh Water) [2013] EWCA Civ 233</description>
         <pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2013 10:16:25 GMT</pubDate>
         <guid>http://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=321959</guid>
         <dc:date>2013-05-13T10:16:25.0Z</dc:date>
      </item>
		    <item>
         <title>Two notices of adjudication can be referred to the same adjudicator</title>
         <link>http://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=321958</link>
         <description>Two notices of adjudication can be referred to the same adjudicator. In Willmott Dixon Housing Ltd v Newlon Housing Trust</description>
         <pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2013 10:16:24 GMT</pubDate>
         <guid>http://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=321958</guid>
         <dc:date>2013-05-13T10:16:24.0Z</dc:date>
      </item>
		    <item>
         <title>Retention as a security</title>
         <link>http://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=320667</link>
         <description>Retention as a security. In Relicpride Building Co Ltd v Cordara [2013] EWCA Civ 158, [2013] All ER (D) 135</description>
         <pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2013 16:31:06 GMT</pubDate>
         <guid>http://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=320667</guid>
         <dc:date>2013-04-11T16:31:06.0Z</dc:date>
      </item>
		    <item>
         <title>Developers, residents and the Defective Premises Act 1972</title>
         <link>http://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=320666</link>
         <description>Developers, residents and the Defective Premises Act 1972. In Zennstrom v Fagot [2013] EWHC 288 (TCC), [2013] All ER (D)</description>
         <pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2013 16:31:06 GMT</pubDate>
         <guid>http://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=320666</guid>
         <dc:date>2013-04-11T16:31:06.0Z</dc:date>
      </item>
		    <item>
         <title>The meaning of good faith and material breach</title>
         <link>http://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=320665</link>
         <description>The meaning of good faith and material breach. The Court of Appeal in Compass Group UK and Ireland Ltd v</description>
         <pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2013 16:31:05 GMT</pubDate>
         <guid>http://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=320665</guid>
         <dc:date>2013-04-11T16:31:05.0Z</dc:date>
      </item>
		    <item>
         <title>Delivery up of goods ordered by court</title>
         <link>http://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=320664</link>
         <description>Delivery up of goods ordered by court. In Generation (UK) Ltd v Advance Scaffolding Services [2012] EWHC 2646 (Ch), [2013</description>
         <pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2013 16:31:05 GMT</pubDate>
         <guid>http://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=320664</guid>
         <dc:date>2013-04-11T16:31:05.0Z</dc:date>
      </item>
		    <item>
         <title>Good faith in the performance of a contract</title>
         <link>http://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=320663</link>
         <description>Good faith in the performance of a contract. In Yam Seng Pte Ltd v International Trade Corporation Ltd [2013] EWHC</description>
         <pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2013 16:31:05 GMT</pubDate>
         <guid>http://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=320663</guid>
         <dc:date>2013-04-11T16:31:05.0Z</dc:date>
      </item>
		    <item>
         <title>Construction contracts and residential occupiers</title>
         <link>http://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=320662</link>
         <description>Construction contracts and residential occupiers. In Westfields Construction Ltd v Lewis [2013] EWHC 376 (TCC), [2013] All ER (D) 328</description>
         <pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2013 16:31:05 GMT</pubDate>
         <guid>http://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=320662</guid>
         <dc:date>2013-04-11T16:31:05.0Z</dc:date>
      </item>
		    <item>
         <title>Consulting engineer liable for diminution in market value of development</title>
         <link>http://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=319483</link>
         <description>Consulting engineer liable for diminution in market value of development. In John Grimes Partnership Ltd v Gubbins [2013] EWCA Civ</description>
         <pubDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:54:52 GMT</pubDate>
         <guid>http://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=319483</guid>
         <dc:date>2013-03-13T15:54:52.0Z</dc:date>
      </item>
		    <item>
         <title>Application for hearing of preliminary issue dismissed</title>
         <link>http://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=319482</link>
         <description>Application for hearing of preliminary issue dismissed. In Aldersgate Estates Ltd v Ham Construction Ltd and Robinson Consulting Ltd [2013</description>
         <pubDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:54:51 GMT</pubDate>
         <guid>http://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=319482</guid>
         <dc:date>2013-03-13T15:54:51.0Z</dc:date>
      </item>
		    <item>
         <title>Relief against forfeiture refused</title>
         <link>http://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=319481</link>
         <description>Relief against forfeiture refused. In Cadogan Petroleum Holdings Ltd v Global Process Systems LLC [2013] EWHC 214 (Comm), [2013] All</description>
         <pubDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:54:51 GMT</pubDate>
         <guid>http://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=319481</guid>
         <dc:date>2013-03-13T15:54:51.0Z</dc:date>
      </item>
		    <item>
         <title>No breach of natural justice in reference to decision in earlier adjudication</title>
         <link>http://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=319480</link>
         <description>No breach of natural justice in reference to decision in earlier adjudication. In Arcadis UK Ltd v May and Baker</description>
         <pubDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:54:51 GMT</pubDate>
         <guid>http://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=319480</guid>
         <dc:date>2013-03-13T15:54:51.0Z</dc:date>
      </item>
		    <item>
         <title>Traditional guarantee or on demand bond?</title>
         <link>http://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=319479</link>
         <description>Traditional guarantee or on demand bond?. In Wuhan Guoyu Logistics Group Co Ltd &amp; Anor v Emporiki Bank of Greece SA</description>
         <pubDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:54:51 GMT</pubDate>
         <guid>http://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=319479</guid>
         <dc:date>2013-03-13T15:54:51.0Z</dc:date>
      </item>
		    <item>
         <title>Action for the price, retention of title clause and the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977</title>
         <link>http://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=318253</link>
         <description>Action for the price, retention of title clause and the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. In FG Wilson (Engineering) Ltd</description>
         <pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:48:02 GMT</pubDate>
         <guid>http://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=318253</guid>
         <dc:date>2013-02-20T11:48:02.0Z</dc:date>
      </item>
		    <item>
         <title>Adjudication and the presumption of regularity or propriety</title>
         <link>http://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=318252</link>
         <description>Adjudication and the presumption of regularity or propriety. In SW Global Resourcing Ltd v Morris &amp; Spottiswood Ltd [2012] CSOH 200</description>
         <pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:48:01 GMT</pubDate>
         <guid>http://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=318252</guid>
         <dc:date>2013-02-20T11:48:01.0Z</dc:date>
      </item>
		
	  </channel>
</rss>
