Industry News HubProject starts increased strongly compared with the previous year, driven by major Social Housing and Industrial schemes, although activity remained below levels recorded two years ago. Main contract awards weakened against both annual and quarterly comparisons, while detailed planning approvals strengthened significantly and reached their…
The post UK construction activity September 2026: Northern Ireland appeared first on Construction News.
Project starts strengthened against the preceding three months and remained above levels recorded two years ago, although activity was significantly lower than a year earlier due to a sharp reduction in major projects. Main contract awards also declined against both annual and quarterly comparisons. Detailed…
The post UK construction activity September 2026: Wales appeared first on Construction News.
When a workplace incident occurs, companies must act quickly to determine what went wrong, preserve evidence, and prevent similar incidents from happening again. But an internal investigation can also create significant legal risks: OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) or other regulators may later request documents, employee interviews, and investigative reports; opposing counsel may seek them in civil litigation; or prosecutors may examine them in a criminal investigation.
Understanding how attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine apply—and how to address the risk of self-incrimination—is essential to conducting an investigation without unnecessarily exposing the company or its employees to additional legal liability.
Any investigation focuses on two goals: to determine what happened and how to address it as quickly as possible without creating additional risks, and to assess a company’s legal risks and potential liabilities. This kind of risk assessment is also an important part of legal due diligence, which helps businesses identify potential issues and liabilities before they develop into larger problems. Litigants may routinely obtain ordinary business records, while the privilege builds a wall around confidential attorney-client communications made to obtain or provide legal advice. This boundary helps determine which specific records can remain confidential.
The privilege does not arise automatically merely because a lawyer is involved or a document carries a specific label. The court looks at the purpose and circumstances of creating specific materials, including the lawyer’s role, the involvement of contractors, and how the information was handled. Consequently, it is better to structure an investigation properly from the very beginning.
Attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between a client and an attorney only if the communication seeks or gives legal advice.
In the context of an internal investigation, teams must establish four basic elements: communication, strict confidentiality, an attorney-client relationship, and an exchange of legal advice between both parties.
The word “client” warrants separate review for corporations. Under the Upjohn (1981) Doctrine, corporate counsel can shield communications with employees under the privilege, provided workers provide the exact information management needs to secure legal advice.
At the same time, the privilege protects the company rather than any individual employee. This becomes especially vital when an attorney interviews employees during an investigation.
The court also assesses the purpose of the investigation. In re Kellogg Brown & Root (2014), the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals adopted a pragmatic approach, acknowledging that legal advice is a primary catalyst for the review.
The lawyer’s role makes sense as well. The corporate lawyer has the right to iron out legal and commercial matters simultaneously, whereas companies typically retain outside counsel specifically to provide legal assistance.
Accordingly, when scrutinizing a privilege claim, the court examines both the nature of the interaction and the intent behind its creation.
Grasping these core principles is essential before moving on to the specific errors that could lead to the loss of corporate privilege.
Companies forfeit attorney-client privilege due to routine, preventable mistakes. Today, courts are showing a growing skepticism toward privilege claims regarding internal investigation materials, particularly in cybersecurity and data breach incidents.
The fatal error is that when teams conduct an investigation to contain an incident, remediate vulnerabilities, or comply with internal policies, courts classify the review as ordinary business activity. The presence of a lawyer in an email chain does not render the communications privileged. Lawyers must take part in the investigation from the outset and position legal advice as a primary purpose.
When the IT-department hires a forensic firm, the report turns out to be an ordinary business document. The court starts exploring who retained the third party, who signed the contract, the scope of work, and which corporate department footed the bill. If this department took on this firm for incident remediation, courts will likely strip privilege protection.
A “Privileged & Confidential” stamp is useless if staff or executives disseminate reports across all corporate offices. Thus, the company may lose the protection not only of the specific file, but of all related materials across the same subject matter. Access must be limited only to employees who require the information to perform their duties.
Providing privileged materials to government agencies, regulators, or insurers without a signed non-waiver agreement will immediately void their protected status. Voluntary disclosure waives your rights in most courts, meaning your opponents will read these documents during a lawsuit. Where an incident involves a road collision and potential injury claim, a car accident settlement calculator can provide an initial estimate based on documented economic losses, injury severity and potential shared fault, although it cannot predict the outcome of any individual case.
If the investigation shows that someone used legal advice to cover up wrongdoing, privilege disappears no matter how carefully teams run the process. This isn’t about technicalities; it’s about intent. Once someone crosses that line, courts won’t protect the communications.
Mastering these pitfalls requires deep, specialized expertise. In fact, the ability to clearly advise corporate boards on these exact privilege boundaries has become a major differentiator in modern law firm marketing, as firms compete to represent high-profile clients facing regulatory scrutiny and civil litigation.
According to the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the law guarantees protection against self-incrimination. This means people have the right to refuse to answer questions that may compromise witnesses to criminal prosecution. Such protection operates on individuals only and wards off government overreach, not employer demands.
The real danger stems from a simple fact: the Fifth Amendment insulates individuals from forced testimony that might incriminate them, yet this constitutional right rarely reaches into internal corporate reviews. An employee may answer an employer’s questions and not even know their words can be used against them. Under the Upjohn doctrine, privilege vests entirely in the corporation; therefore, management can choose to give up this protection and hand over all findings to government regulators.
The real danger stems from a simple fact: the Fifth Amendment insulates individuals from forced testimony that might incriminate them, yet this constitutional right rarely reaches into internal corporate reviews. An employee may answer an employer’s questions and not even know their words can be used against them. As legal teams at Mission Personal Injury Lawyers frequently observe in litigation, under the Upjohn doctrine, privilege vests entirely in the corporation; therefore, management can choose to give up this protection and hand over all findings to government regulators.
The Upjohn Warning helps avoid risks. Before questioning, a lawyer should warn staff members that they represent the company’s interests and the information will be protected by the company’s own attorney-client privilege.
This distinction is critical not just for corporate defense, but for the integrity of the legal process as a whole. As Craig Rosenbaum of Rosenbaum Meier Personal Injury Lawyers notes:
“In personal injury and corporate liability cases, the way a company conducts its internal investigation is often placed under a microscope. When employers fail to clearly articulate the Upjohn warning or blur the lines between routine business operations and legal counsel, it doesn’t just risk waiving privilege—it can be perceived by courts and juries as an attempt to obscure the truth. Establishing clear, legally sound investigative protocols from day one is the only way to ensure a fair process and protect all parties involved.”
There are other rules for public employees. In cases such as Garrity v. New Jersey (1967) and Kalkines v. United States (1969), courts have established special rules for testimony that public employers may require from a worker. Private companies usually lack such constitutional protections. That is why employees must understand that the attorney represents the organization and that the company controls the attorney-client privilege.
True privilege protection kicks off not at the moment of incident occurrence, but dates back long before that—straight to the corporate Incident Response Plan (IRP). If the IRP spells out who triggers legal involvement, when they act, and which protocol they execute, the company clears the internal logjam during those vital first hours. Every single minute without legal guidance generates unprotected documents.
Post-incident activity plays a crucial role. After an investigation, the process demands a privilege audit: double-check the entire paper trail, confirming that every record from subcontractor contracts to mailing lists aligns perfectly with the core legal objective.
Leadership rolls out a practical tool by utilizing two distinct documents: the commercial report addresses compliance and insurance needs, while the privileged report serves legal counsel alone. Dividing workspaces and workflows is not mere bureaucracy; it serves as a defensive framework that demonstrates to the court how the company intentionally decoupled legal matters from general business messages.
Securing privilege is a structural feature of the investigation, rather than an optional extra. This protection applies when a lawyer oversees the entire process, while the company methodically walls off legal evaluations from commercial data.
One outcome remains inevitable under these circumstances: the company must disclose the facts in any event. The aim is to prevent internal legal evaluations from becoming evidence against the organization itself.
Those who design investigations with this in mind before an incident occurs retain total control over both materials and risks.
The post The Legal Pitfalls of Incident Investigations: How to Maintain Privilege and Avoid Self-Incrimination appeared first on HSE Network.
MRW Scotland proposes new rules for household recycling Public feedback is requested on new code of practice aiming to implement consistent national recycling regime and limit residual waste collections Scotland proposes new rules for household recycling Daniel Bosley Read More
The recognition comes as TEREYN continues to strengthen its position within the hospitality industry, working with hotel owners, operators and developers to create spaces that enhance guest experience, improve operational efficiency and maximise commercial potential.
The practice was recognised at the National Building & Construction Awards ceremony on 9th October at the Leonardo Royal London Tower Bridge Hotel, where it was shortlisted alongside architectural practices from across the UK in a particularly competitive year for the category.
The award follows a period of growth and investment for TEREYN, which has expanded its capabilities and continued to develop its portfolio of hospitality, leisure and commercial projects across the UK.
For TEREYN, successful hospitality design goes beyond creating attractive spaces. How a hotel, restaurant, or leisure venue is planned can influence guest experience, operational efficiency, and ultimately commercial performance.
This approach is reflected in the practice’s recent work with Cambridge-based G&D Properties, developing hotel bedroom refurbishment concepts and restaurant layout proposals designed to improve the guest experience, support efficient operations and make better commercial use of existing spaces.
TEREYN’s wider hospitality and leisure portfolio also includes the extension and refurbishment of Coffee World café and roastery in Milton, Cambridge, alongside proposals to redevelop Newton Green Golf Club’s clubhouse in Suffolk.
The practice’s appearance at the Independent Hotel Show at Olympia London on 5th and 6th October provided an opportunity to meet hotel owners, operators and industry professionals, share its work and discuss the challenges and opportunities facing the sector.
Elliot Ewing, managing director of TEREYN, commented: “It’s been a really positive few weeks for us. Exhibiting at the Independent Hotel Show gave us the opportunity to meet fantastic people across the hospitality industry, and following that with our third consecutive national award is a great achievement for the team.
“Hospitality is a sector we particularly enjoy working in because there’s so much more to consider than how a space looks. You need to understand how a hotel or restaurant operates, how guests experience it and what the business needs to achieve commercially.
“We’ve worked hard to develop TEREYN into a practice that combines good design with a real understanding of our clients’ needs. The competition at this year’s awards was particularly strong, so to be recognised again at a national level means a great deal to us.”
As hotel owners and operators look for opportunities to improve their existing properties, TEREYN sees considerable potential for refurbishment, adaptation and more effective space planning. The practice continues to build relationships across the hospitality industry, supporting clients from early feasibility and concept design through to planning, technical design and project delivery.
The post Hospitality architects TEREYN secure third consecutive national award following Independent Hotel Show appeared first on Planning, Building & Construction Today.
MRW Tenders and contract wins round-up 30th October 2026 Tenders and contract highlights includes awards of agreement to provide community pharmacy needle exchange services, as well as a contract for supplying smart waste bins. Tenders and contract wins round-up 30th October 2026 Sonali Dandu Read More
Have you ever considered what you would do if a colleague showed up for work under the influence of drugs or alcohol?
Many of us might think we know what we would do but in reality, faced with potential confrontation or the prospect of getting that person into trouble, I think for most people the decision wouldn’t be so straightforward. It’s a situation I’ve faced personally, and I have on more than one occasion asked people to leave site.
Construction operations can be high risk, and impaired judgment could cause accidents and incidents. Just like driving your car, reaction times and sound cognitive performance are key to site safety.
Even for managers, judging the right course of action can be difficult. This can be harder still if the company doesn’t have a policy or guidelines that set out a zero-tolerance approach to drugs and alcohol. There’s clearly a duty of care in these situations, not only when it comes to the safety of everyone in that workplace but also the individual involved, who may be struggling with addiction.
During my time as chair of CIOB’s health, safety and wellbeing advisory panel, the issue of drugs and alcohol is one we’ve discussed at great length. We reviewed sample policies from several organisations, which varied greatly, and found that many don’t have any such policy at all.
This led us to develop a free-to-use template policy for companies to use, especially in cases where there is no in-house HR expertise.
The template policy sets out clear definitions of alcohol and drugs, expectations on employees and managers, how testing for drugs and alcohol can be managed, and consequences should anyone not comply with the policy. We worked with K2 Associates as a SEQUOHS-accredited occupational services provider for an expert second opinion, before publishing the template on 6 October 2026.
One matter that I’ve been asked about a lot is testing and whether construction companies should regularly test their employees for alcohol and/or drugs. My first piece of advice is to remember what you are testing for. Testing is a way of upholding your safety standards and ensuring people are fit for work. It is not there to invade privacy or to “clean up the industry” as I once heard it described.
When it comes to how to test and how often to do it, this is best decided by a company, based on their core activities and the level of assessed risk. There are many testing methods and while results for most are instant, they are only an indicator, and a non-negative sample must be sent for further lab analysis to confirm with 100% accuracy.
Testing can be delivered by internal staff after some basic and relatively cheap training and instant testing pots are available for a few pounds each, so I do feel it is possible for smaller organisations to have testing plans in place.
The next question always relates to what happens if someone returns a non-negative test or has arrived for work clearly under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and this is where my previous point about a duty of care comes in.
First and foremost, speak to them and ask them to go home, keeping in mind if someone is heavily intoxicated, you may need to arrange transport. It’s important you then follow up later and ask how they are.
While some form of disciplinary action will almost always be required, I also feel that most people wouldn’t knowingly go to work intoxicated on a whim. What I have experienced in 15 years in this industry is, more often than not, people struggling and turning to drugs and alcohol do so because their personal life has been negatively affected by situations like bereavement, divorce or financial hardship. These people need support, not telling off, and for me, this is the priority.
Addiction or self-medicating is, in my experience, the most common reason stated when a non-negative drug or alcohol sample is given. This is why the CIOB template policy recommends taking a supportive approach.
Someone losing their job should be a last resort and for employees with longer-term struggles, options such as finding them another less safety-critical role can be explored while signposting them towards counselling and supporting such treatment through flexible working wherever possible can often help them to unpack other issues that may be contributing to the need to self-medicate and hopefully overcome them.
While having a policy in place on drugs and alcohol is highly recommended, that will only go so far when it comes to exactly how you support employees struggling with drug or alcohol use. There will never be a one-size-fits-all solution, as everyone is different, so a degree of discretion and professional judgement will often be needed alongside the policy.
In an industry fraught with risk, it is vital workers are of sound mind and not impaired by alcohol or drugs when in workplaces where reaction times and unclouded judgement are vital to everyone’s safety. It’s on all of us to develop that culture so everyone feels safe and supported.
CIOB’s template drugs and alcohol policy can be downloaded here.
The post Drugs and alcohol on site: Policy and practicalities appeared first on Planning, Building & Construction Today.
The recruitment programme, Scottish Pathways to Construction, was launched in October 2024 following a successful application to CITB’s Industry Impact Fund.
Developed by Balfour Beatty in collaboration with Capital City Partnership, the programme focuses on wellbeing, inclusion and sustainable employment outcomes, helping underrepresented groups access careers in construction.
Ian Hughes, CITB engagement director for Scotland, said: “The Industry Impact Fund is designed to support projects that tackle industry-wide challenges and deliver lasting benefits for construction.
“Scottish Pathways to Construction has done exactly that, helping underrepresented groups access careers in the sector while creating a proven model that can be adopted more widely across Scotland to support future workforce needs.”
To date, 105 candidates have completed the programme, with 57 securing employment or starting an apprenticeship. A further 19 participants have progressed into advanced training or further education at college.
The construction recruitment programme specifically targeted refugees and migrants, people from ethnic minority communities, women entering the construction industry, disabled people, unemployed and underemployed individuals, as well as social enterprises and local SMEs.
Participants took part in industry insight events, careers awareness sessions, training programmes, and work placements designed to build confidence, improve employability skills, and provide valuable hands-on experience in construction careers.
Beyond supporting individuals into employment, the programme has also helped address workforce shortages across the sector while promoting greater equity, diversity and inclusion.
Since the programme’s conclusion this month, it has left a proven framework that can be replicated and adopted more widely across Scotland.
By combining central coordination with local flexibility, it has shown an effective way to widen access to construction careers and support a more diverse and sustainable workforce.
The post Construction recruitment programme surpasses 100 Scottish participants appeared first on Planning, Building & Construction Today.
A Labour MP has urged ministers to ensure new cladding legislation does not leave main contractors carrying remediation costs that should be recoverable from specialist subcontractors and suppliers. Mike Reader, who previously held building safety accountability responsibilities at Mace, welcomed proposals to make it easier…
The post MP warns cladding disputes could cause contractor collapses appeared first on Construction News.
Octavius Infrastructure has blocked enforcement of a £416,499 adjudication award over specialist lifts that a manufacturer spent five months making before Network Rail opted for different technology. The High Court dismissed manufacturer Serapid’s application for summary judgment, finding that Octavius had a “real prospect” of…
The post Octavius blocks £416k payout over cancelled Network Rail lifts appeared first on Construction News.