The introduction of the JCT 2024 suite of contracts has sparked mixed reactions.
- JCT’s recent contract release highlights potential oversights regarding the Building Safety Act.
- Provisions in the contract may not thoroughly address higher-risk buildings’ compliance.
- Experts stress the need for bespoke amendments for complex safety requirements.
- Health and safety measures remain optional, prompting criticism from industry leaders.
The release of the Joint Contracts Tribunal (JCT) 2024 contract suite has been met with a cautious reception, as experts point out potential omissions regarding the Building Safety Act. Thirteen documents have been integrated into the Intermediate Building Contract (IBC), targeting smaller contractors engaged in refurbishment or structural alteration projects. However, the recent iteration’s provisions predominantly focus on the general duty-holder system, potentially neglecting the specific demands of higher-risk buildings.
Adam Jason, a legal director at Brabners’ construction team, highlighted the importance for contractors involved in projects concerning higher-risk buildings (HRBs) to contemplate additional bespoke amendments. These amendments aim to ensure compliance with the intricate stipulations of the new building safety regime, which mandates crucial processes such as gateway sign-offs and maintaining a ‘golden thread’ of building information. Marc Preston, director of Construction Dispute Experts, echoed these sentiments, indicating that additional provisions are necessary for instances where funders, insurers, and purchasers lack precise requirements for building information.
A noteworthy inclusion in the new IBC is the mandatory ‘good faith’ clause, which aspires to promote collaborative and transparent interactions between clients and contractors. This shift aligns with the government’s Construction Playbook, although its impact on dispute resolution remains to be seen, according to Jason. Conversely, the exclusion of firm health and safety protocols as mandatory inclusions has been criticised by Preston for not aligning with public and private construction playbooks.
Further amendments accompany the 2024 release, encompassing collateral warranties, bonds for advance payments, and mandates for suggesting eco-friendly amendments. Jason pointed out the necessity for parties to include specific clauses for environmental standards to achieve net-zero targets. Epidemics have also been incorporated as ‘relevant events’ allowing time extensions, though notable exclusions like asbestos and contaminated materials risk allocation remain for the parties to manage individually.
Anthony Armitage from Thirdway noted that while no significant risk allocation changes occur, the focus on better risk and relationship management could empower contractors to drive productivity improvements. Despite these developments, the contracts fall short by not equating mental health support with health and safety provisions, a gap highlighted by Preston.
The JCT 2024 contracts highlight progress towards collaboration and sustainability but reveal gaps in safety and mental health standards.
