A recent decision by Mr Justice Ramsey means that the Construction Act can be applied to more activities than you may have thought
When the Construction Act went through parliament there was vigorous lobbying by sections of the industry which argued that the problems of non-payment and late or unjustified set offs that the act sought to address did not exist as far as they were concerned, and hence that it should not apply to them.
These groups include those engaged in drilling and extraction of oil, natural gas and minerals, as well as the assembly, installation and demolition of plant and machinery on power generation sites.
In 2000, in the case of ABB Construction vs Norwest Holst Engineering, His Honour Judge Lloyd appeared to be convinced, as he said, that 鈥渢he most thorough investigation was evidently carried out, otherwise the government could not have been convinced that certain sectors of the industry were so well organised that no regulation of their contracts was needed. One cannot but be impressed by the detail of the work done: drilling for oil and gas is excluded, but drilling for water is not; a project for tunnelling to lay a sewer or construct a railway has to be regulated, but not one requiring a tunnel for minerals鈥�.
There has been lively debate as to the circumstances in which exemptions are or are not granted. Indeed, the state of the existing exemptions is by no means clear.
This is the issue that came before Mr Justice Ramsey on 18 May in the case of North Midland Construction vs AE&E Lentjes UK, on which a decision was handed down recently.
The dispute involved civil works on Fiddlers Ferry and Ferrybridge power stations in West Yorkshire 鈥� specifically the piling, foundation earthing, concrete, reinforcement and detailed engineering. Nor