Hayley is a construction disputes specialist, dealing with various aspects of construction dispute resolution including adjudication, adjudication enforcement, mediation, negotiation and formal court proceedings. Hayley also has experience in the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court and judicial review.

Hayley acts for a wide range of clients including housebuilders, developers, contractors, sub-contractors and property owners.

She provides legal and strategic advice to clients on all types of construction disputes including payment and variation claims, delay and extensions of time, loss and expense, as well as claims relating to defective design and workmanship disputes.

Hayley has extensive adjudication and adjudication enforcement experience however she particularly specialises in complex high value claims in the Technology and Construction Court relating to major building defects and fire safety and cladding issues wherein Hayley has acted in relation to a number of notable reported cases.

How do you help clients?

I help clients resolve disputes in a commercial and pragmatic way.


  1. Advising leaseholder claimants in relation to claims under 10 year new home warranty policies for major design and workmanship defects including internal and external issues of fire safety, both prior to and following the Grenfell Tower tragedy. The proceedings have included successful appeals to the Court of Appeal and applications to the Supreme Court and Administrative Court.
  2. Advising a group of leaseholder claimants in relation to a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation against a building control approved inspector.
  3. Advising a group of leaseholders in relation to a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation against the 10 year new home warranty provider in relation to their sign off of a development of 270+ apartments which was affected by extensive fire safety defects.
  4. Advising a main contractor in a series of adjudications against a structural engineer concerning the delay and loss and expense (amounting to c.£1.8m) caused by their defective design of a large cantilever roof structure.
  5. Advising a large university in relation to extensive delays and claims for variations and loss and expense by the main contractor employed to carry out the extensive refurbishment of their campus. The main contractor was seeking to increase the contract sum by c£4m and completion was forecast for another 6 – 8 months. This would have put the university in a position whereby they would be unable to accommodate students for the next academic year. The matter settled without the need for formal proceedings with a completion programme and maximum final account sum which was within the University’s budget (at a fraction of that originally sought by the main contractor). As a result, the University was able to accommodate students for the next academic year.