Construction & Engineering
Anna’s practice has touched on nearly every aspect of the built environment. The examples provided below have been divided into broad categories of structure, though it will be appreciated that within construction and engineering there is always cross-fertilisation of issues and technical matters.
Power
Wind Power & Water Plant: Acting as junior on behalf of the Generator in a dispute arising out of the construction of a Power and Water plant in Bahrain. Multi-billion dollar claims advanced, including claims for a reduction in the tariff (both water and power), extensive remedial works claimed by the off taker (as opposed to the generator), together with significant counterclaims for unpaid capacity charges. Complex delay arguments with each protagonist blaming others for the delay suffered. In respect of the same project, acting as lead counsel in respect of the claim “down the line” by the Generator against the Contractor.
Biomass: Acting for Sub-contractor in relation to allegedly defective pipework installation at waste wood biomass combined heat and power plant in the United Kingdom.
Biomass: Acting for the Contractor in relation to the construction of a storage grip for an agricultural biomass plant in the United Kingdom. Grip collapsed resulting in competing allegations of defective design and defective workmanship (given the way the storage unit would be loaded and unloaded).
Solar Power: Acting for the Contractor in relation to claim against sub-contractor for defective ‘string’ work at a solar farm that resulted in the plant being unable to operate and requiring extensive remedial works that impacted the owner/operators supply obligations.
Wind Power: Acting for insurers of operator of a large offshore wind farm in the North Sea in relation to allegations of defective planned maintenance work by a contractor who implemented a switching sequence that caused significant damage resulting in an extended period of interruption whilst extensive remedial works were undertaken.
Transport
International Airports – Middle East: Dispute arising out of the design and construction of a main international hub-airport together with five regional airports. Part of a substantial team of counsel acting on behalf of the Employer, dealing with allegations of negligence concerning the design and administration of the contract extending over 7 years with multi-billion-pound (equivalent) claims against each party. Responsible for claims in relation to architectural design and detailing, airport design, air traffic forecasting. retail planning, airfield lighting, and navigational aids.
International Airport – Europe: Acting as Junior on behalf of the Contractor in relation to a claim for US$50M arising out of a construction project in Bulgaria. Claims relating to both allegedly defective works and significant delay/project cost overruns consequent upon unforeseen ground conditions.
Metro – Earthworks & Piliing: Acting on behalf of a Sub-Contractor in respect of four separate sub-contracts, where each contract was subject to different bespoke terms concerning earthworks and piling works in respect of a new metro line. Issues concerning the operation of contractual terms, approach to valuation and pricing of the works and variations.
Metro – Station MEP/Fit Out: Acting on behalf of a Sub-Contractor in respect of MEP and Fit-Out Works for a series of stations in respect of works associated with a new metro line. Contract based on FIDIC Red-Book subject to bespoke amendments. Issues concerning the operation of the contractual terms, the conduct of the Employer/Engineer regarding Clause 15.3 Determinations and associated disclosure issues and overarching issues of application of local Law.
Stadia & Sporting
Twickenham: Claim arising out of the design and installation of the HV cabling upgrade to Twickenham Stadium. Acting for MEP Sub-Contractor brought in as Third Party following Court of Appeal decision in FM Conway Limited v RFU, RSA & Clark Smith Partnership Limited [2023] EWCA Civ 418. The Defendant (civil engineer) alleged that MEP Sub-Contractor had design responsibility, or had assumed design responsibility for the underground ducts in which the HV cables would be installed. The cable ducts leaked resulting in catastrophic damage to the HV cables, which required complete replacement at significant cost.
Racecourse: Acting for the Contractor in relation to the construction of a racecourse with associated hospitality and hotel facilities in the Middle-East. Allegations of defective design, workmanship, delay and cost overrun.
Athletic Stadium: Acting for the Contractor in relation to a US$20M against sub-contractor for wrongful determination of the contract relating to the construction of an athletic stadium in Beirut on behalf of UK-based main contractor. Delay issues included the use of the site by the army as a gun emplacement site.
Residential: Luxury & Mixed Use
Mixed-Use Residential: Acting for Employers in linked disputes concerning the construction of the largest mixed-use residential and commercial development in Qatar. Complex arguments on civil code on the enforceability of settlement agreements (where fraudulent misrepresentation was alleged) and the impact of the same; the existence of alleged agreements to indemnify performance of subcontractor as well as technical arguments on the causes of extensive condensation, water penetration and other architectural issues. Cross over with local court due to issues with performance and guarantee bonds.
Luxury Home: Acting for the Contractor in relation to a dispute concerning the construction of one of the most luxurious private dwellings in Dubai Hills, with a dispute value of over £ 20 million (equivalent). Allegations of incomplete design, employer variations, defective workmanship and delay. The Employer terminated the contract, giving rise to issues as to the validity of the termination and the recoverability of the consequential costs that were incurred by each of the parties.
Residential Development: Acting for the Insurer in relation to the collapse of a residential development built in a crescent arrangement. Insured was a labour-only sub-contractor where competing causes of failure advanced. In addition, allegations about site management and bullying as regards instructions that were given (but not recorded) were said to be causative of collapse. The Claimant sought substantial damages for delay, which were not related to the original collapse but the need for substantial redesign and/or betterment.
Car Park: Acting for the Architect in respect of a claim in relation to the design and construction of a car park for a newly built block of flats. The wearing course delaminated, and it was alleged that the Architect had failed to make sufficient waterproofing provision within the design. The Architect asserted the Structural Engineer was responsible for that element of the design, an allegation that the Engineer reflected back to the Architect. In addition, complex arguments on the identities of the ‘correct’ contracting parties.
Tower Block – Piling: Acting on behalf of the Contractor in relation to a new development in Dubai where the employer alleged that the piling works were defective, preventing the development from being undertaken. Arguments concerning the adequacy of the pile construction and responsibility for project delay.
Restaurant: Acting on behalf of the Insurer of the Contract Administrator in relation to the refurbishment of an exclusive restaurant where it was alleged that the works had suffered extensive delay and spiralling costs as a result of default on the Contract Administrator’s part.
Retail: Acting on behalf of the Contract Administrator in relation to the redevelopment of retail premises where it was alleged that the Contract Administrator had failed in its duties as regards the drawing up of contract documents and the assessment of the contractor’s entitlement to an extension of time, in consequence of which its employer was in breach of its obligations under the Agreement for Lease as between the employer and the ultimate landlord.
Hotels
Oman: Acting on behalf of a Joint Venture in relation to the construction and fit-out of a luxury hotel in Oman. Allegations of delay, changes in design, supply of materials, variations, defects & remedial works.
Abu Dhabi: Acting on behalf of the Contractor in relation to a dispute arising out of the construction of an airport hotel that utilised modular design. Issues concerning the scope of contractual obligations under the FIDIC Red Book Rules; adequacy of design regarding sound transference, instruction of additional works and validity of those instructions, independence of Engineer as regards his decisions, causes of delay and disruption and valuation issues.
Canary Wharf: Acting on behalf of owner/operator in relation to a £4 million dispute arising out of the contractor’s defective design and installation of fire stopping running through the Hotel, as a consequence of which the hotel has been unable to operate.
Headquarters & Offices
Headquarter Building: Acting for the Tenant in relation to a multi-party dispute arising out of the construction of new “HQ” premises where the project overrun was circa 2.5 years and where the budget overrun represented a 50% increase. Multi-faceted arguments concerning defects in the base build works that resulted in extensive remedial works that pushed out the completion date; consequences of a number of significant flood events; causation issues as regards nature and scope of remedial works to be undertaken; contractual obligations as between base build and fit-out works; allegations of default on part of Contract Administrator acting on behalf of the Landlord; issues concerning entitlement to rent pursuant to the agreement for lease.
Office Block: Acting for the Insurer of substantial new build office development that suffered extensive water ingress through rain-screen cladding due to a product incompatibility, resulting in wholesale replacement of the façade at the cost of circa £2 million. Allegations of negligence against two contractors, a cladding consultant and an architect each of which had the opportunity to identify the interface failure but failed to do so.
Office Park: Acting for an insurer on behalf of the Developer against the novated architect where it is alleged the defective roof design resulted in water ingress necessitating wholesale replacement of the roofs to four office blocks within a new purpose-built/designed office park.
Selected Cases
Hiscox Insurance Company v Mr Ismail Oral (t/a Precious Marble) & TPN Electrical [2018] EWHC 3585 (TCC) – Concerned cause of fire originating in switch panels that resulted in losses of £2m.
Lulu Construction Limited v Mullaley [2016] EWHC 1852 (TCC) – Enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision finding that he had jurisdiction to award costs claimed under the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998.
Jockey Club Racecourse Ltd v Willmott Dixon Construction Ltd [2016] 4 W.L.R. 43 [2016] 1 Costs L.R. 123 – Considers the requirements of a valid Part 36 Offer as to liability where quantum uncertain / in dispute.
Mul v Hutton Construction Ltd [2014] EWHC 1797 (TCC); [2014] All ER (D) 58 (Jun) – Interpretation of “appropriate deduction” for defects under cl 2.30 of JCT Intermediate Form of Contract (2005).
Glendalough Associated SA v Harris Calnan Construction Co Ltd [2013] EWHC 3142 (TCC); [2014] 1WLR 1751 – Concerns seeking injunctions in construction adjudications.
Pioneer Cladding Ltd v John Graham Construction Ltd [2013] EWHC 2954 (TCC) – Enforcement proceedings where contractor (winning party in adjudication) had misrepresented hi financial position at the date of contract.
Amsprop Ltd v ITW Ltd [2009] EWHC 2689 (TCC) – Concerned proof of cause of fire at Hard Rock Café, where competing causes alleged.
Upton McGougan Ltd v Bellway Homes Ltd [2009] EWHC 1449 (TCC) – Considers the requirement for particulars of breach to be pleaded where professional negligence is alleged.
Landfast (Anglia) Ltd v Cameron Taylor One Ltd [2008] EWHC 343 (TCC); 117 Con LR 53 – Concerned recoverability of losses where assignor and assignee had suffered loss.
SCI Azure Estates Ltd v Mullen [2007] EWHC 263 (QB) – Considers mechanism of contractual formation, intention to create legal relations and retrospective application of agreement.
View full profile »Awards
News
- Crown Office Chambers Construction and Arbitration team in the Middle East next week
- Dubai Arbitration Week 2024
Events
- Crown Office Chambers Construction and Arbitration team in the Middle East next week
- Dubai Arbitration Week 2024
Articles
- Anna Laney writes article for ICES Construction Law Review 2014 entitled ‘Adjudication: Quick & Filthy’
- Adjudication: a Pioneering decision – by Anna Laney October 2013
Memberships
- COMBAR
- LCLCBA
- TECBAR
Recommendations
“Anna is very good at explaining difficult nuances in the law and is brilliant at cross-examining.”…”Her ability to understand the most complex technical details with absolute ease is just unbelievable.”
Chambers & Partners, 2025
“Anna Laney is extremely personable.”…”She very quickly imbeds herself in the team and brings out the best in people.”
Chambers & Partners, 2025
“A well-deserved promotion to KC. A joy to work with – hugely commercial and able to engage well with construction clients.”…”One thing that makes Anna stand out is her ability to get most out of the team working through a case. She dives straight in and has a way of bringing out the best of experts and the team working behind a case.”
Legal 500, 2025
“Anna has an intuitive sense and a wealth of knowledge.”…”She is smart, robust, and super user-friendly. Clients love her tenacious approach.”
Legal 500, 2025
“Anna Laney is the real deal: her ability to grasp the nuances of a technical issue and then to deliver in cross-examination is second to none. She is also a pleasure to work with.”…”She’s wonderful – very strong on her feet, tough to beat, she really gets into the cases, and clients and lawyers love working with her.”
Chambers & Partners, 2024
“Anna is extremely talented. She is the most inclusive and team-focused barrister: her manner with everyone ranging from the client to the most junior member of the team, is excellent, and a skill that is vastly overlooked. To boot, her legal ability really is second to none: her advocacy, both complex in its approach, but succinct and to the point, really is her strength.”… “Highly experienced and knowledgeable. A formidable advocate and negotiator. Excellent at explaining to instructing solicitors and clients in a clear, accessible way.”
Legal 500, 2024
“Anna is an exceptional construction barrister. She is highly responsive, pragmatic and commercial.”
Chambers & Partners, 2022
“Highly competent, capable, dependable and fantastic to work with. KC quality work and knowledge. Tougher than the rest.”
Legal 500, 2022
“Extremely thorough and knowledgeable, wholly committed to the case at hand. Very impressive delivery in court and personable when dealing with instructing solicitors and clients.”…”Anna always gives clear and authoritative advice on case strategy. She has a calm and friendly demeanour.”
Legal 500, 2021
“Anna is an exceptional construction barrister. She is highly responsive, pragmatic and commercial.”; “She is extremely knowledgeable regarding construction and insurance issues, and also great to deal with.”
Chambers & Partners, 2021
“She is incredibly knowledgeable in construction disputes. I have been very impressed with both Anna’s technical knowledge and legal advice.”; “She is outstanding with clients and really puts them at their ease, giving a firm impression that she is on their side.”
Chambers & Partners, 2020