How can I help?
How can I help?

Peter Clayton

Senior Lecturer

Peter is a Senior Lecturer in Law (part time) and joined LBU in 2021 following a 26 year career with international law firm Pinsent Masons in both the UK (1995 to 2011) and in Hong Kong (2011 to 2021).

Orcid Logo 0009-0006-6255-8247
Peter Clayton staff profile image

About

Peter is a Senior Lecturer in Law (part time) and joined LBU in 2021 following a 26 year career with international law firm Pinsent Masons in both the UK (1995 to 2011) and in Hong Kong (2011 to 2021).

Peter is a Senior Lecturer in Law (part time) and joined LBU in 2021 following a 26 year career with international law firm Pinsent Masons in both the UK (1995 to 2011) and in Hong Kong (2011 to 2021).

Peter began his career in the UK in 1992 working on a wide range of civil and criminal matters before qualifying as a solicitor and moving to Masons (now Pinsent Masons) in 1995. He completed a masters degree in Construction Law and Arbitration at Leeds Beckett University in 1998 and, for a time after, was a visiting lecturer and examiner on the course.

During his career at Pinsent Masons Peter advised a wide variety of public and private clients, predominantly in the infrastructure sector. These included companies, joint ventures, professional practices and governments both in the UK and Hong Kong. Peter's practice covered all forms of dispute resolution as well as acting on transactional matters. He was made a partner of Pinsent Masons in 2005 and in 2011 moved to Hong Kong where he studied to qualify as a Hong Kong solicitor in 2012.

Since joining Leeds Law School Peter has developed an undergraduate Construction Law Module, obtained FHEA status and is pursuing a PhD as a student of Strathclyde University. He has also been appointed as an external examiner by Northumbria Law School.

Peter teaches (or has taught) Contract Law, Company Law, Construction Law, Business Law and Practice, Civil Litigation, Alternative Dispute Resolution and Corporate Secretarial Practice.

Related links

Leeds Law School

Research interests

  • International security of payment legislation applicable to the construction industry

Publications:

  • 'Designing to Budget: Architects' Duties and Liabilities' Const. L.J. 2022, 38(6), 374-385
  • 'International Security of Payment Legislation for the Construction Industry: Evolution, Revolution and the Search for an Optimum Model' Arbitration: The International Journal of Abitration, Mediation and Dispute Management, 2024, 90 (2), pp. 288-321.
  • 'International Security of Payment in Common Law Jurisdictions: Climbing Different Sides of the Pyramid" J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2026, 18(1): 04525090

Publications (4)

Sort By:

Journal article
Designing to Budget: Architects' Duties and Liabilities
Featured 2022 Construction Law Journal38(6):374-385 Sweet and Maxwell

The article considers the duties owed by architects when designing to budget or providing costs advice and examines the difficulties of pursuing claims arising out of alleged breaches of the same.

Journal article
International Security of Payment Legislation for the Construction Industry: Evolution, Revolution and the Search for an Optimum Model
Featured 31 May 2024 Arbitration: The International Journal of Abitration, Mediation and Dispute Management90(2):288-321 Kluwer Law International B.V.

International security of payment legislation for the construction industry (“SoPL”) seeks to improve cash flow and reduce costly disputes. It does so primarily through regulating payment practices and providing rights to fast track, interim adjudication. This article examines the development of SoPL in eight jurisdictions where it has been in force for at least 15 years and been subject to substantive review and amendment. The different models of SoPL are examined from the policy perspectives of improving economic efficiency and protecting small businesses. The focus is on the practical implications of SoPL and consideration is given to fairness and balance between those who undertake and those who pay for construction. It is argued that SoPL has been successful in many of its aims and, intentionally or not, effected a significant de facto privatisation of justice. In many ways it has addressed problems of the justice system rather than the construction industry. However, the international development of SoPL has also shown that ex post regulation by enforcement of rights through adjudication alone cannot achieve all policy objectives, especially for the smallest businesses. Provisions for actual security of funds and criminal sanctions for compliance failures are gaining traction in some jurisdictions. Whilst SoPL has sometimes been criticised as intruding into freedom of contract or giving special treatment to the construction industry it might be more relevant to ask whether SoPL should have resonance and application in other sectors.

Journal article
International security of payment legislation in common law jurisdictions: Climbing different sides of the pyramid.
Featured 01 February 2026 Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction18(1):1-28 American Society of Civil Engineers

Since 1996, security of payment legislation (SoPL) for the construction industry has been introduced in a number of common law jurisdictions. It aims to limit unfair payment practices and provides rapid dispute resolution through adjudication. This article examines SoPL from a regulatory perspective in the context of the particular policy rationales for SoPL in different jurisdictions. Namely, increasing economic efficiency and/or protecting the contracting and subcontracting businesses most impacted by payment delays and disputes. It finds that the original models of SoPL took a smart or decentered approach to regulation reliant on ex-post enforcement actions by market participants. The steps contractors and subcontractors can take to secure payment are identified but it is further noted that, while SoPL has largely succeeded in its aims, experience in practice has led some jurisdictions to take a more muscular approach including introducing more formal models of regulation backed by penalties and sanctions. The article concludes by noting that the appropriate regulatory model depends on the primary policy objectives in individual jurisdictions. It is also noted that those jurisdictions which sanction particular behaviors are targeting mala prohibita breaches of requirements created specifically by the SoPL. The question is posed whether all SoPL models and rationales should proscribe and sanction those who knowingly and unlawfully seek to avoid or delay payments. This seems to be the commercial mala in se to which all SoPL is addressed even if articulated policy rationales differ. Thus, although SoPL has brought undoubted benefits, particularly to those who undertake construction work, some stakeholders may wish to lobby for further protections.

Journal article
Optimising UK Adjudication: Efficiency Gains From Overseas
Featured 28 October 2025 International Construction Law Review Informa Intelligence
AuthorsClayton P, Agapiou A

This article evaluates whether adjudication under Part 2 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA) can be procedurally optimised by drawing on statutory adjudication models from overseas—particularly New South Wales’s Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999. The research is based on both doctrinal and functional comparative analyses of international security of payment legislation and adopts an economic lens to assess whether more streamlined mechanisms could reduce transaction costs and promote fairer outcomes. By noting features across jurisdictions and proposing measured reforms - such as adopting statutory claim and response procedures, simplified adjudication commencement, unified statutory rules and restrictions on what can be adduced in adjudication - this article offers a framework for policymakers and practitioners to enhance adjudication’s efficiency and predictability without undermining access to justice. The recommendations support a modernised adjudication system better aligned with the realities of commercial construction and the demands of timely dispute resolution.

Current teaching

  • Applied Corporate Law
  • Business Law and Practice
  • Civil Litigation
  • Construction Law
  • Corporate Secretarial Practice