International Construction Law Review
INTRODUCTION
HUMPHREY LLOYD
DOUGLAS S JONES
We first welcome back a longstanding contributor – Mr Jeffrey Delmon. He was formerly with, amongst others, Allen & Overy, but is now with the World Bank. He has always been interested in risk so he has taken the subject of “Risk Noise” for an extended article which we will be publishing in two parts. For those unfamiliar with the term “risk noise” Mr Delmon uses it to describe the various factors that impede an individual’s ability to assess risk based purely on an objective interpretation of accurate and complete information. He argues that “noise” as a word “evokes the distraction and frustration involved in endeavouring to transmit a signal or information and having that signal altered or tainted by some internal or external influence”. As with his earlier articles, this paper is of direct relevance to construction as it embraces what risk may be on construction projects. In this instance the author looks at risk allocation in project financed public private partnership transactions by reducing the impact of risk noise (at page 134). The first part of the survey covers an examination of risk noise in terms of “lack of knowledge, anchoring and familiarity”. The second part will look at 12 project finance transactions and how they do not routinely implement the traditional approach described in this first article.
The next two papers are both peer reviewed contributions. We congratulate the authors on producing and submitting papers that were commended for publication by our Peer Review Group, chaired by Professor Monika Chao–Duivis. The first is entitled “Two Road Maps for EU–Proof Land Deals” (at page 155). It was written by Mr Arjan Bregman, of the Dutch Institute for Construction Law and also Research Fellow at the Amsterdam School of Real Estate. The subject-matter of his paper are guidelines produced in the UK and the Netherlands to help local governments and private entities in reaching acceptable agreements about the financial aspects of land development so that they become “EU-proof”. Mr Bregman finds that there are similarities between the two types of “road map” used in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, but also differences. He suggests that the British approach could be interpreted as more restrictive as there is no performance obligation as a distinct condition for the application of the EU public procurement regime whereas such an obligation is present in the Dutch road map. On the other hand, the Dutch road map is more restrictive on the developer who owns the land to be developed.
The second paper is intriguing and somewhat unusual. Dr Devin S Lin writes about “Legislating Floor Numbering in Hong Kong” (at page 173). His starting point is that in cosmopolitan cities like Hong Kong, there is a practice of skipping certain unlucky numbers in floor numbering. His paper examines three popular approaches to floor numbering: the first permits no more than two floor numbers in a consecutive series being omitted; the second allows the omission of floor numbers such as 4, 13 and
132