Next one.. AFDDs. Looks like there's a change from High Risk Residential Buildings to Higher-risk buildings (innocuous enough of itself as the definition seems to be similar (18m or 7 storeys and containing 2+ residential units) but the actual definition is indirected to the Building Safety Act and "The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision supplementing this section.". Does this mean than BS 7671 has become "ambulatory" and it's precise meaning could change at any time without the knowledge or consent of JPEL/64? (or the reader of BS 7671)?

   - Andy.

AJJewsbury said:

who takes the hit of paying for and installing all the extra AFDDs?

In many standard forms of contract, this is addressed in the change procedures, bu typically it's a change that the client will have to agree to, or not (at their choice and 'peril'.

can already change from what any of us thought it meant in given circumstances ... simply the because only a court can interpret a Standard.

Fair point - the words might not mean what we think they mean, but a situation where the words themselves change, seems worse to me.

   - Andy.

In many standard forms of contract, this is addressed in the change procedures

Indeed - but if we're moving into a world where "BS 7671 to xxx. amdended to yyy" is no longer fixed reference point, doesn't the whole problem get worse? Is the situation where "complies with BS 7671" doesn't mean the same as "complied with BS 7671", is making things comply a change?

   -  Andy.

AJJewsbury said:

Indeed - but if we're moving into a world where "BS 7671 to xxx. amdended to yyy" is no longer fixed reference point,

I don't see what the issue is ... this is down to how the standard is interpreted, and that can mean something different tomorrow than it did today, if a court case determined so (see earlier post).

That would be something the project change procedure is there to address.

Similarly, if legislation were to appear requiring an isolator is fitted in a certain place you never priced for one, that would be project change.

In the particular case cited, at least there's proposed to be a note so you can include in 'provisional sums' of a tender ...

If a contract depends upon a statute or standard which has yet to be enacted or issued, it would probably be void for uncertainty.

BS 7671 does go out of date, which is why we have amendments (large and small), and new editions.

gkenyon said:

only a court can interpret a Standard. All you can get from anywhere else is an opinion on the meaning.

Yes, a judge will make a judgement which declares the meaning of a provision. However, judges make errors (that is why we have appellate courts and tribunals) and sometimes their judgements are less than clear.

Chris Pearson said:

Yes, a judge will make a judgement which declares the meaning of a provision.

Or interprets the meaning for a particular circumstance.

Chris Pearson said:

However, judges make errors (that is why we have appellate courts and tribunals) and sometimes their judgements are less than clear.

Not sure of the point being made here? Surely it's only the proper course of action.

And of course, clarifying meaning for one circumstance may not help other circumstances.

Just out of curiosity, has there ever (yet) been a case of a court deciding on the correct interpretation of BS 7671?

   - Andy.

AJJewsbury said:

Just out of curiosity, has there ever (yet) been a case of a court deciding on the correct interpretation of BS 7671?

Surely any case where one or more experts provide opinions based on the standard must determine, for the purposes of the case, the veracity of those opinions?

And when opinions provided for both sides provide different interpretations, the experts' opinions must be reconciled somehow?

So, I would say 'yes'.

gkenyon said:

Not sure of the point being made here? Surely it's only the proper course of action.

And of course, clarifying meaning for one circumstance may not help other circumstances.

Regarding the second point, a lawyer would say that the current case may be distinguished from a previous one on the facts.

My point was that judges are not infallible and a particular judgement may be less than clear.

The principle of binding precedent means that lower courts, e.g. the County Court must follow higher ones, i.e. High Court and above. That may be a problem when it comes to interpreting e.g. a High Court judgement.

It's a money-go-round for lawyers!

gkenyon said:

Not sure of the point being made here? Surely it's only the proper course of action.

And of course, clarifying meaning for one circumstance may not help other circumstances.

Regarding the second point, a lawyer would say that the current case may be distinguished from a previous one on the facts.

My point was that judges are not infallible and a particular judgement may be less than clear.

The principle of binding precedent means that lower courts, e.g. the County Court must follow higher ones, i.e. High Court and above. That may be a problem when it comes to interpreting e.g. a High Court judgement.

It's a money-go-round for lawyers!