According to the CIC form, the advisor is not necessarily exempt from his or her obligations to the employer. The appointment provides for the maintenance of the advisor`s obligations regarding guarantee and confidentiality. However, the CLLS form favours a break of its own, with the innovation characterizing the separation of the employer`s appointment of the advisor from that of the advisor by the incumbent. Another difference in this form is the inclusion of a timetable that should cover all services that need to be modified to reflect the fact that the contractor replaced the employer as a result of an innovation. There is another timetable for dealing with changes in the contractor`s obligations. This handy note relates to standard form novation agreements published by the City of London Law Society (CLLS) and the Construction Industry Council (CIC). With regard to the CIC Innovation Agreement, this practical note deals with the „Switch“ edition published in 2004 – in 2018, the CIC has published an „ab initio“ innovation agreement (revised in 2019) and we will publish new content on this subject in due course. Paul was also co-author of the standard form of the Innovation Agreement and the Building Projects Guide published by the City of London Law Society. Paul is a specialist in international and national construction, based on 16 years of consulting experience in many high-level and high-level projects around the world. In terms of international experience, Paul has advised and represented clients on projects around the world, with extensive experience in civil jurisdictions. At the same time, Paul maintains a strong reputation for construction law in the United Kingdom, which is reflected in his membership in the JCT Council (the body responsible for publishing the main types of construction contracts in the United Kingdom) and as chair of the JCT Construction Dispute Resolution Group.

It is customary for parties involved in construction projects to use their own forms of tailored innovation agreement and, as a result, many different forms circulate. However, two standard forms were published in 2004, one by the LLSC Works Committee and the other by the CIC. The others are short and simple documents that have avoided unnecessary provisions, but they have different approaches to the consultant`s innovation. However, they deal with both the main problems of Blyth- Blyth v Carillion and the „no loss“ argument (see practical mentions: innovation in construction projects and defence „deficit“ in construction contracts).