The Construction Industry Joint Council (CIJC) has agreed new pay rates from Monday 30 June. There is a 3.2% increase in the basic wage rates, as well as increases in travel and subsistence allowances and sick pay. The new rates should be read in conjunction with the Working Rule Agreement and Holiday Entitlement.
From this Autumn, it will become mandatory for all company directors and people with significant control (PSCs) to verify their identity to prove who they are. This is a new legal requirement under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 to help prevent people using companies for illegal purposes.
Taking action now will help you to avoid delays or complications. If your company has multiple officers, allow plenty of time for each one to verify their identity. Directors based outside of the UK may also need extra time if they plan to use an authorised agent, also known as an Authorised Corporate Service Provider (ACSP) to verify their identity.
You can verify:
What happens when you verify
Identity verification is a two-step process.
Step 1: Verify your identity and get your Companies House personal code. This code is personal to you, not the company. Keep this information secure until you need to use it. You can view your personal code in the ‘manage account’ section of your Companies House account.
Step 2: From autumn 2025, link your verified identity to Companies House records. Information on how to do this has not yet been issued.
The Act gives Companies House the power to play a more significant role in disrupting economic crime and supporting economic growth. Over time, the aims is that the measures will lead to improved transparency and more accurate and trusted information on its registers.
There will also be new responsibilities for:
More details can be found here and a guide to changes to Company Law can be found here.
Finishes and Interiors Sector (FIS) is taking a stand against poor behaviour in the supply chain. Members working in the housebuilding sector have raised concerns about unfair snagging practices on plaster or tape and jointed walls where LED lights are being used at shallow angles to inspect the finish.
This improper practice whereby the light is shined close to, or directly against the surface of the wall, highlights surface imperfections which are normally imperceptible to the human eye well within tolerance when industry-standard inspection methods are used.
On launching the campaign, Iain McIlwee, FIS Chief Executive stated: “We often talk about the culture of construction and that means we need to look at all behaviours and the effect they have. It is clear to us that this over-zealous approach to inspection is creating a lot of bad feeling and straining relationships. Our belief is that the practice has little to do with quality and everything to do with keeping pressure on the supply chain, making sure sub-contractors are operating under commercial tension. In the worst of cases it is being used to delay, reduce or withhold payment and with that all the cashflow and mental health issues that plague SMEs in the supply chain. Sometimes problems can be put down to people not understanding the standards and techniques, but in reality, it is often little more than bullying behaviours and has no place in the sector today.”
To tackle the problem head-on, FIS has published new guidance which members are encouraged to download and share with their clients ahead of starting work. This guidance covers how inspections should be conducted and encourages the classification of the flatness of the plastered finish is agreed along with the level of smooth finishes before work starts.
FIS Head of Technical James Parlour said: “Over the years we’ve tried attacking this problem from purely a technical perspective, but frustratingly people continue to ignore the standards. Change won’t happen unless we put our heads above the parapet and start to call out bad behaviour. This latest guidance and supporting resources should help align expectations and inspections to the standards and ensure that we avoid glancing light issues in inspection which exaggerate even the smallest of imperfections.
We do appreciate that it can be difficult for individual members to do this directly, but we are also asking members to report to us when they encounter these bad practices and we can pick it up as a collective effort.
So the message is clear, if you are inspecting drylining and plaster finishes, refer to the standards and ensure that your processes are informed, fair and realistic. If you are a specialist contractor and have experienced unfair snagging practices, don’t just put up with it and move on reach out to us in confidence so we can log cases and start to challenge businesses to improve”.
Beyond site tension FIS is also concerned the effect bad practices have on those looking to start a career in the sector. Young people are being encouraged into the industry but when they are faced with this culture and ruthless nature many leave before they have had chance to really see what a good career the construction industry can offer. We need to create a better culture on site to attract and retain the people we need.
To support the campaign FIS will be launching a short video to help showcase the problem and is develop new training to support inspections. You can register on the FIS website to receive free access to the training when it is launched later this summer.
For more information and to keep an eye on developments visit the FIS Shine a Light Campaign page here.
To report your experiences, email details in confidence to info@thefis.org or call 0121 707 0077.
The Conflict Avoidance Coalition has announced the appointment of Richard Bayfield, Vice President of the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE), as its new Chair. A seasoned professional in construction and engineering, Richard brings decades of expertise to this leadership role.
Established in 2018, the Coalition now comprises around 90 of the UK’s leading professional and industry bodies, including FIS as a Bronze signatory. Its mission is to reduce the financial and relational costs of disputes in construction and engineering by promoting collaborative practices and encouraging widespread adoption of the Conflict Avoidance Pledge.
In his first weeks as Chair, Richard has formed a new steering group to coordinate delivery of the Coalition’s aims and has introduced a written constitution to provide a strong governance framework. These steps mark a renewed phase of activity and impact for the Coalition. Former Chair, Len Bunton, has taken the new role of President of the Coalition
Speaking on the New President, Richard Bayfield said:
“In his former role as Chair Len Bunton has been a tireless advocate for positive change in the industry. Indeed, Len has managed to enthuse a significant array of organisations into joining the coalition. The Steering Group was unanimous in awarding Len the role of President upon his leaving the Chair’s role.
Speaking on his appointment, Richard Bayfield said:
“Conflict Avoidance Processes (CAP) anticipate that conflict is inevitable in any situation involving human activity. Often, small problems are hidden and eventually grow to become too big for the project team to resolve. Decisions are then escalated to a third party such as a judge or adjudicator, at great financial and relational cost to the parties. CAP avoids such risks.”
Martin Burns, RICS representative on the Coalition, welcomed Richard’s appointment:
“Richard has immense knowledge and experience in construction and engineering dispute resolution. His appointment as Chair adds to the Coalition’s status and its growing influence on how employers and suppliers behave towards each other in an industry that has often been damaged by unnecessary disputes.”
In a further development, the Coalition has also launched its new website. Designed as a user-friendly platform, the website will make it easier than ever for businesses and organisations to adopt the Conflict Avoidance Pledge. The new website is a hub for conflict avoidance professionals, providing practical tools and resources to help organisations embed proactive dispute management processes. Visitors to the site are also invited to submit their own conflict avoidance news and events for hosting on the website.
For more information and updates on the website launch, visit conflictavoidance.org.
Steering Group Members
Len Bunton (President)
Richard Bayfield (Chair)
Jeremy Glover (Vice Chair)
Ed Schryver (Vice Chair)
Ian McIlwee (Treasurer)
Sue Barrett
Ashley Belcher
Stephen Blakey
Martin Burns
Julie Forsyth
Ysella Jago
Jim McCluskey
On 21 May 2025 the Supreme Court handed down Judgment in the case of URS Corporation Ltd -v- BDW Trading Ltd [2025] UKSC 21.
This Judgment is perhaps one of the most significant since the Building Safety Act came into force as it starts to give us an indication of how Developers claims are going to impact the wider market. The case addressed important issues such as:
(1) the scope of duty and the recoverability of loss in negligence;
(2) limitation periods under section 135 of the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA);
(3) whether section 1(1)(a) of the Defective Premises Act (DPA) applies to developers; and
(4) whether a judgment or settlement is required to enable a party to bring a contribution claim under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 (Contribution Act).
The facts
BDW is a major property developer and includes Barratt Homes and David Wilson Homes. URS, was engaged by BDW to act as a structural design consultant in connection with multiple high-rise residential developments which completed some considerable time ago. In the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower tragedy BDW reviewed its portfolio. Two of its high-rise residential developments contained design defects.
Even though BDW had disposed of its interest and sold the developments, in 2020 and 2021 BDW undertook remedial works to the properties at significant cost. At this stage no claim was made against BDW by any third party and in any event, at the time, any such claims would have been time barred.
In March 2020, BDW brought a defects claim against URS to recover its losses. BDW successfully amended the claim in June 2022 following the coming into force of the BSA which retrospectively extended the limitation period for claims under section 1 of the DPA from 6 to 30 years. The case ended up the Supreme Court where Seven Justices of the Supreme Court heard 4 grounds of appeal in December 2024:
Decision
All four grounds the Court found in favour of BDW (URS’s appeals were dismissed):
| Ground 1 | Is loss that is otherwise recoverable in the tort of negligence irrecoverable if it is incurred (i) without an enforceable legal obligation to do so, and (ii) in respect of property in which the claimant has no proprietary interest, because such loss is voluntarily incurred, and that means it falls outside the scope of the defendant’s duty of care and/or is too remote?
No. There is no rule of law which means that the voluntary carrying out of the repairs by BDW render the repair costs (1) outside the scope of the duty of care owed or (2) too remote. Whether these costs were recoverable is a question of fact and depends on legal issues of causation and mitigation which will be assessed when considering liability. The effect of this is that developers who incur costs to remedy building safety defects, even in the absence of a claim from a third party, may be able to recover these costs from the negligent builder or designer. |
| Ground 2 | Does section 135 of the BSA (extended limitation period) apply in the present circumstances and, if so, what is its effect?
Yes. Section 135(3) BSA applies to claims which are dependent on s.1 DPA. To make a claim, a developer would need to establish that it applies to actions arising out of a liability that is dependent on section 1 of the DPA even though it is not an action brought under section 1 of the DPA. Such actions are clearly “in respect of damage or defects in relation to buildings”. The Supreme Court said the alternative would undermine the purpose of the BSA i.e. to ensure those responsible for historic building safety defects are held to account. There is a possible sting in the tail for developers or other relevant claimants seeking to recover losses incurred despite the existence of a potential limitation defence. This is because section 135 (3) BSA does not retrospectively affect the answer to the questions of causation, mitigation and remoteness which determine whether a developer can recover compensation from a negligent designer or contractor for the cost of remedial work carried out before June 2022. This will be a matter to be addressed when considering liability. |
| Ground 3 | Does section 1(1)(a) of the DPA also apply to property developers?
Yes. The Supreme Court have said that there is no reason why a developer cannot both owe a duty and be a owed a duty, particularly where the developer is the first owner. |
| Ground 4 | Is BDW entitled to bring a contribution claim against the URS under section 1 of the Contribution Act when there has been no judgment or settlement between BDW and any third party and no third party has ever asserted any claim against BDW?
Yes. The Supreme Court held that the right to contribution arises when: (i) damage has been suffered by C for which D1 and D2 are each liable; and (ii) D1 has paid or been ordered or agreed to pay compensation for the damage to C. On the facts, BDW paid compensation (in kind) for the damage suffered by the homeowners by carrying out the repairs. The fact that there has been no judgment against the developer or admission of liability or settlement between it and any of the homeowners, nor any claim, does not prevent the claim for contribution. |
It is worth noting too that, as intervener, the government made written submissions relating to the background to the BSA, the structure of the BSA and the policy and purpose underlying the BSA in general and section 135 in particular. These submissions were very much supportive of BDW’s case.
The consequences
The Supreme Court has provided encouragement and motivation to developers to be proactive in carrying out repairs by clarifying the law and signifying that there are a host of options available to them to seek to recover those costs.
This gives “teeth” to the BSA and the policy underpinning the Act.
The Supreme Court’s decision will likely have a significant impact on historic claims for building safety defects. However, there are some wrinkles to be ironed out. Whilst the policy behind the decision may be clear, some of the legal issues remain complex and nuanced and the effect of this judgment will be subject to further debate and discussion and clarification by the court and for future cases to involve arguments around causation and mitigation.
This article is an abridged version of an article originally written by FIS Legal Advisors Hill Dickinson, the full article can be seen here.
With recent figures revealing that the construction industry experienced the highest number of insolvencies over the past year, the resilience of the supply chain remains a priority, and Build UK’s contract terms recommendation identifies six contract terms which should be avoided to promote collaboration and ensure a fair allocation of risk
Build UK have published comprehensive guidance to help implement the recommendation, explaining why each term should not be used and setting out ways to manage the underlying issues more effectively, with specific guidance for JCT and NEC contracts. The recommendation is non‐binding and FIS members are free to negotiate their own contractual terms with their clients.
