Cookie consent

This website uses cookies to collect information about how you use this website. Atkin Chambers uses this information to make the website work as well as possible and improve the services provided by members and staff. You may choose to accept all cookies or chose to manage your cookie settings here:

Cookies on atkinchambers.com

Cookies are files saved on your phone, tablet or computer when you visit a website.

Atkin Chambers uses this information to make the website work as well as possible and improve the services provided by members and staff. You may choose to accept all cookies or chose to manage your cookie settings here:

Cookie settings

Atkin Chambers Limited use two types of cookie files, analytical cookies and necessary cookies. You can choose which cookies you are happy for us to use.

Analytical cookies that measure website use

Atkin Chambers Limited use Google Analytics to measure how you use the website so it can be improved based on user needs. Atkin Chambers do not allow Google to use or share the data about how you use this site.

Google Analytics sets cookies that store anonymised information about:

  • how you got to the site
  • the pages you visit on atkinchambers.com, and how long you spend on each page
  • what you click on while you’re visiting the site

Strictly necessary cookies

These essential cookies do things like remember your progress through a form (for example if you register for updates). They always need to be on.

Save changes

Glen Water Ltd v Northern Ireland Water Ltd [2017] NIQB 20

3rd Feb 2018

The case arose out of a PFI contract regarding a project for the upgrade of sludge treatment services in Northern Ireland.  Glen Water entered into the contract with the Department of Regional Development for Northern Ireland which became Northern Ireland Water subsequently.

This was a substantial project to take place over 25 years. Part of the project involved the upgrade of sewage services at the Duncrue Street facility – a project which had two phases – the construction phase and the service commencement phase. The case raised issues as to the scope and meaning of operating the plant as a “prudent operator” and whether or not any relevant Compensation Events have occurred and the subsequent financial consequences and effects.

The court was required to determine, as a preliminary issue, whether the company had properly notified the water authority of its claim as required by the contract.

Nicholas Dennys QC for the Defendant.

To read the full judgment please click here

3 February 2017





Related Sectors

Related Juristictions

Register for updates

To keep in touch with news and updates from Atkin Chambers:

 

Register