On retentions in UK commercial contracts, including construction contracts (as defined by the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 and the NI equivalent): in July 2025 the DBT (in July 2026 renamed the DBIST) put out to consultation possible statutory reforms on Late Payments. The varied proposals all aimed further to encourage cash flow down the contractual chain. In May 2026, following Time to Pay Up (March 2026) from the DBT, many of these possibilities were included in the Commercial Payments Bill 2026 (UK, but including special NI provisions). Subject to a transitional period, its Chapter 2 would make retentions ineffective in new construction contracts, in turn modifying aspects of the HGCRA and the separate statutory Schemes (E&W, Scotland and NI): on these, see section [9.9.1] in the book. The new legislation would also impose a rate of statutory interest on late payments (as defined). 

However, the Bill looks primarily to ‘commercial’ contracts (between those acting in the course of a business). It does not appear to modify the scope or effect of the ‘residential occupier exception’ in the HGCRA s 106, so its changes relating to payment will not affect B2C construction contracts (or hybrid construct-and-transfer contracts) within this exception: see sections [9.9.2]ff and their updates below. For retentions provisions not caught by the new legislation, there appears to be no plan to copy Australia and NZ in imposing trust structures to protect these sums against employer insolvency; nor to ensure that quick and cheap adjudication is available to enforce release of retention sums, when due.

For the Victorian developer bond regime foreshadowed in n 26, see the update below to section [10.2].

Dawn v Carlisle Homes Pty Ltd [2025] VSCA 58 provides an object lesson in the limits for homeowners (here, a largely self-represented claimant) to assert legal rights against their builder. The Court (Niall CJ, Emerton P and Gray AJA) dismissed all 14 grounds on which the homeowner asserted that VCAT had erred below, observing at [1]:

To make the system work as it is intended, parties need to remain focussed on achieving practical resolutions and to avoid overly technical or inflexible approaches. Otherwise, as this case illustrates, relatively minor issues can lead to protracted processes and costly outcomes.

The Court laid out in some detail the case’s impact on the claimant, noting for example at [36]-[38] that he had been ‘feeling overwhelmed and suicidal’ and that he ‘had feelings of avoidance of the matter that made it difficult for him to work on it’. Although the Court regarded this as ‘very concerning evidence’, it did not justify an adjournment of the hearing: not ‘in anyone’s interests’. Ultimately, the homeowner’s original withholding of the builder’s final payment claim of A$40,779.40 resulted in the Court upholding a payment to the builder exceeding A$100,000, plus doubtless very significant legal costs. On litigants in person (‘party litigants’ in Scotland), see section [9.7.1] in the book and its updates below.

(especially for n 59) For discussion of the three types of Civil Restraint Order under English law, limiting for a period a party’s ability to undertake civil litigation without judicial permission, see Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Wright [2025] EWHC 1139 (Ch) at [5]ff (Mellor J); on the further remedy, a Civil Proceedings Order under the Senior Courts Act 1981 s 42(1), see [98]ff of the same judgment. Singapore has the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 ss 73-74, providing for civil restraint orders as well as the power to label litigants as vexatious, barring them from participating in legal proceedings without court permission: see AG v Ng Kai Hoe Raymond [2026] SGHC 162 (Hoo Sheau Peng J). On Isaac Wunder orders in Ireland, see the update below to section [9.12.4], also Dunne J in M v M [2026] IESC 2. For an example of a litigant’s family being excluded from court proceedings, see The Board of Management of Wilson’s Hospital School v Burke (No. 8) [2026] IEHC 509. In NZ, ss 7-9 of the Judicature (Timeliness) Legislation Amendment Act 2025 extend powers in the Senior Courts Act 2016 (NZ) to stop ‘plainly abusive civil proceeding’ and to restrain persons from commencing or continuing civil proceedings.

We use as a reference point throughout the book the Lacrosse building fire (Melbourne 2014) and its aftermath’ especially via the cases which made their way through VCAT and the Courts. A case of similar landmark proportions in relation to combustible cladding and its rectification – this time, involving Sydney’s Star Casino – was decided by Rees J in The Star Entertainment Sydney Properties Pty Ltd v Buildcorp Group Pty Ltd trading as ‘Buildcorp Interiors’ [2026] NSWSC 27. While a commercial rather than residential building and therefore not of such direct relevance to the book, the case includes relevant insights into a number of matters including: a detailed description of the ACM system: [19]-[33]; the applicable BCA requirements during construction (around 2014): [34]-[66]; and the impact of post-Grenfell interventions: [419]-[427].

The earthquakes in northern Venezuela on 24 June 2026 (the most serious in impact of the eight quakes of that magnitude so far recorded worldwide in 2026) caused hundreds of buildings, including high-rise residential buildings, to collapse (partly or completely), with thousands of deaths and many more thousands missing. And then, in late August 2026, landslides and floods, triggered by a glacial collapse in the Himalayas, swept away further immense numbers of buildings and lives in Nepal. The longer-term focus for both disasters may identify inadequate construction standards and their implementation as contributing to the scale of damage and death.

(especially for n 78) New 2025 eruptions caused a further evacuation of Grindavík: Miranda Bryant, ‘Icelandic Town and Blue Lagoon Spa Evacuated After Volcanic Eruption’ The Guardian (1 April 2025). A later eruption took place between 16 July and 5 August 2025, but unless there is further activity, tourist groups can visit Grindavík, and the Blue Lagoon is open.

(especially for n 80) For a video profile of Hayley Tillotson – ‘first-time buyer at 27, and bankrupt at 28’ – see www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/business-55847260.

(especially for n 90) Some of the negative features of shared ownership in E&W are summarised in the National Audit Office Investigation into Shared Ownership (March 2026) and in the Fabian Housing Centre research report On The Ladder (July 2026). There is now a Shared Ownership Code (E&W), aiming to ‘ensure transparency, fairness, and improved support for shared owners through the process of choosing, purchasing, and living in a shared ownership home’. The Code is open for adoption by registered shared ownership providers, including housing associations, for-profit providers and local authorities. Since 2025, the New Homes Quality Board has been its Code Operator; by August 2026, four providers had adopted the Code, covering more than 22,000 shared ownership homes across the UK. On the NHQB, see section [6.7.3] in the book and its updates below.