Martlet Homes Ltd v Mulalley & Co Ltd is the first decision from the TCC on fire safety defects following the Grenfell Tower tragedy. This decision is highly significant for the construction industry, given the number of similar cases which are either progressing through the courts or at the pre-action stage. Although the judge emphasised the fact-specific nature of the dispute, this decision provided some insight on the court’s likely approach to some of the significant issues that affect cladding disputes.This blog considers some of the key takeaways from that decision in further detail.

On the face of it, the law of limitation seems fairly straightforward. The law in England and Wales specifies that anyone bringing a breach of contract claim has six years from the date of the breach in which to do so. This period is extended to 12 years from the breach of contract if the contract has been executed as a deed. But what happens when a provision such as the one below is added into the mix? Does this work to extend the limitation period? If not, what exactly does this provision, which I’ll refer to as the Proposed Clause, mean?

The Court of Appeal recently considered the application of, and relationship between, no oral modification (NOM) and entire agreement clauses. While this was not a construction case (the appeal in question concerned a contract for the provision of dental services), both types of clause are commonly included in construction contracts. The judgment also restates a number of rules of contractual interpretation, which serve as a useful reminder, and perhaps a warning, of the potential pitfalls when seeking to administer and vary contracts.