Welcome to Issue 3 – the autumn issue. I have focused some attention on ‘change’: changes that affect bureaucracy in the new Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015; whether the law on liquidated damages as set out a hundred years ago by the House of Lords, in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v. New Garage and Motor Co, will change when the Supreme Court decides the appeals in Cavendish Square Holdings v. Makdessi and ParkingEye Limited v. Beavis; and changes to the Society of Construction Law Protocol on Delay and Disruption issued a decade ago. The subject of the changes is, of course, very important to the construction industry – health and safety, liquidated damages, and the assessment of delay and disruption – hence my reasoning in dedicating a significant part of this issue to these topics. I am grateful to Raymond Joyce for his super article on the CDM Regulations. I have also chosen to continue to look at case law dealing with payment notices under the so-called Construction Act. I expect readers will keep and use Henia Investments Inc v. Beck Interiors Ltd as a reference point when it comes to looking at interim payment notices and the ‘pre-conditions’ to taking liquidated damages. Finally, the issue closes with a look at a case that sits between public procurement and competition law: the Danish road-marking case provides both a warning and useful guidance. These are all important topics for all those involved in the construction law sector, and I hope readers will find this issue informative and a useful reference point.
