Housing Grants Construction, Regeneration Act 1996

Paper Summary:

The paper examines Section 107 of the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act, passed by the United Kingdom Parliament in 1996. Specifically the paper looks at the interpretation of section 107, which deals with matters of adjudication, and how it was affected by a series of United Kingdom court cases between the years 2002 - 2007.

Outline:
Introduction
Body
Conclusion
Bibliography

From the Paper:

"The Court stated that the broad interpretation of the section 107 of the HGCRA 1996 was wrong and that the Section 107 was intended by Parliament to be interpreted as meaning that the whole agreement has to be in writing, not only the basic terms. This was underlined by the fact that the time in adjudication is tight, therefore the adjudicator should not have to spend time deciding what contract terms may or may not apply. As not all terms of contract were in writing, The Court found that in the case of RJT v DM there was no right to adjudicate.
"This whole issue remains a real concern within the industry particularly given the apparently restrictive interpretation of section 107 of the Act by the Court of Appeal in the RJT case, which may mean that many industry contracts, particularly those involving small and medium-sized enterprises, will fall outside of the scope of the legislation."

Sample of Sources Used:

• 1996, The Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act.
• Adriaanse, J. (2nd edition). Construction Contract Law.
• Case law: RJT Consulting Engineers v DM Engineering (Northern Ireland) Ltd (2002) .
• Case law: Cowlin Construction Ltd v CFW (Architects) a firm (2004)
• Case law: Westdawn Refurbishment Ltd v Roselodge (2006)

More papers on Housing Grants Construction, Regeneration Act 1996:

• Essay # 66337 : "Residential or Low Income Housing Construction"
• Argumentative Essay # 54830 : "The Patriot Act"
• Term Paper # 71451 : "The Housing Policies of Margaret Thatcher"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: