This is the second in a ten-part article series on the legal strategies shaping the future of data centre development in the UK. The UK data centre sector’s expansion is increasingly dominated by the shell and core development model. Hyperscale and major colocation tenants are seeking to deploy capital efficiently, accelerate their time-to-market, and retain maximum control over their proprietary technical environments. In response, developers are delivering powered shells – buildings with foundational power and cooling infrastructure but without tenant-specific fit-out – as the market standard. This approach provides tenants with the freedom to customise their IT architecture. But it also presents developers and investors with complex legal and commercial challenges. The core objective is to create a flexible, scalable asset while ensuring a secure, bankable investment that meets the stringent criteria of institutional finance. The success in shell and core projects depends on the seamless integration of planning, development, construction, leasing and regulatory strategies. A misstep in one area can cascade through the project, affecting finance, tenant relationships and operational performance. This second instalment of our Insight Series examines the legal frameworks underpinning these developments, from the structure of development management agreements and lease contracts to the regulatory considerations shaping the market.

This is the first in a ten-part article series on the legal strategies shaping the future of data centre development in the UK. The UK’s data centre market is entering a period of rapid expansion, set to grow from $10.7 billion in 2024 to $22.7 billion by 2030. This is being driven by the computational demands of artificial intelligence, the widespread shift to cloud services and the relentless rise of enterprise-level computing. The result is a highly competitive market for powered land. For hyperscale operators, institutional investors and specialist developers, the acquisition of these sites is no longer confined to the parameters of conventional real estate. Instead, it’s now a complex, high-stakes convergence of energy regulation, planning law and strategic commercial negotiation. Successfully navigating this landscape to deliver projects on time and on budget requires commercially astute legal advice to mitigate risk, unlock value and achieve market-leading outcomes. In this article, we explore the legal, regulatory and commercial strategies that underpin successful data centre development, from planning consent and power supply agreements to ESG integration and emerging technological requirements.

In this Insight, first published in PLC, BCLP Partners Jennifer Varley and James Clarke consider the Supreme Court decision in URS Corp Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2025] UKSC 21, which has significant implications for building safety disputes. This article explores the four grounds of appeal brought by URS after the developer, BDW, sought to recover costs for remediating structural defects. 

The construction industry will continue to face rising material prices, volatile markets and inflation. Disputes go hand in hand with rising prices as projects become much more difficult to complete on time and within budget. However, contractors can take some steps to protect themselves in a volatile market and manage liabilities and disputes if they arise.

On 16 December 2021, the PFI Centre of Excellence issued its Phase 1 PFI Expiry Health and Learnings Report. In this BCLP Insight, Jennifer Varley considers how these development areas may impact both the public and private sector.

The final account is normally a wrap-up of the contractor’s valid claims for extra payment. It’s particularly helpful if claims were not submitted or assessed as works progressed. So, what happens if the contract doesn’t have a final account procedure but there are claims outstanding once the works are finished? Can a final account procedure be implied under section 110(3) of the Construction Act 1996This was one of the questions the TCC faced in the recent case of JSM Construction v Western Power.

Legal commentators forecast the demise of ‘smash and grab’ adjudications following the first instance decision in Grove v S&T. Upholding that decision, the Court of Appeal decided that an unsuccessful party to a ‘smash and grab adjudication’ can commence a separate adjudication seeking a decision as to the true value of its interim payment application. An employer can now adjudicate to recoup an overpayment without waiting for the next payment cycle (which was the position before the decision in S&T v Grove). Does the decision herald an end to ‘smash and grab’ adjudications? Will contractors be deterred because  the employer can more quickly reclaim the overpaid amount? Not likely. The benefit to contractors of the ‘smash and grab’ adjudication is more than a temporary windfall. It offers the contractor cash flow, negotiating power in final account negotiations and puts the burden on the employer to demonstrate why the contractor is not entitled to those sums in an adjudication as to the ‘true value’ of the interim payment. So what, if anything, will anything change after S&T v Grove?