Commercial Disputes Weekly – Issue 2334 February 2025

Construction
The Technology and Construction Court provided guidance on the notice requirements for a contractor to a subcontractor under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. It confirmed that where the subcontractor submits an interim payment application, the contractor only needs to serve a valid payment notice or payless notice in response, not both, where the two notices would contain the same information. Although the requirements for the content of a payment notice and a payless notice are exactly the same, one notice cannot operate as both. The court held that the relevant email was a valid payless notice. The judge was pleased to avoid an outcome that involved the notices being invalid due to an overly legalistic interpretation of the requirements. The result was that an adjudication decision was not enforced where it had awarded a sum to the subcontractor on the basis that the contractor had not served a valid payment or payless notice.
Placefirst Construction Ltd v Car Construction (North East) Ltd [2025] EWHC 100 (TCC), 24 January 2025

Sovereign Immunity
Following a decision handed down in December 2024, the Court of Appeal held that it should exercise its discretion to make a declaration that section 4(2)(a) of the State Immunity Act 1978 (that permits state immunity in UK local contracts of employment in certain circumstances including where the individual is a national of that state) was incompatible with Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Kingdom of Spain v Lorenzo [2025] EWCA Civ 59, 29 January 2025

Expert Determination
The Commercial Court has ordered that an expert determination contained manifest errors, so was not binding on the parties. The dispute arose out of a concession agreement relating to the running of events in the London Olympic Stadium. Clause 50 of that agreement provided that certain disputes should be referred to an expert whose decision would be final and binding “in the absence of manifest error”. The errors related to the calculation of sums due from one party to the other and whether two transactions could be regarded as one “Qualifying Transaction”. The court concluded that these errors were so obvious and obviously capable of affecting the determination that they satisfied the test of being “manifest errors”.
WH Holding Ltd v E20 Stadium LLP [2025] EWHC 140 (Comm), 27 January 2025

Sanctions
Ms Khan was subject to designation under the UK sanctions regulations for the purpose of asset freeze and transport sanctions on the basis that there were reasonable grounds to suspect that she was associated with someone, namely her husband, who was obtaining a benefit from or supporting the Government of Russia. She has challenged this designation on a number of occasions emphasising the independence of her financial assets from those of her husband. The court rejected arguments that there was no rational connection between the designation and its purpose, and that the judge had erred in relation to the approach to considering the designation decision. Further, the judge had considered the best interest of Ms Khan’s children as a primary consideration.
Khan v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs [2025] EWCA Civ41, 24 January 2025

Should you wish to discuss any of these cases in further detail, please speak with a member of our London dispute resolution team below, or your regular contact at Watson Farley & Williams: