The emphasis in this issue is on two important areas: (a) bonds, guarantees and collateral warranties, and (b) the dangers for consultants when agreeing to do work or provide services. Performance bonds, parent company guarantees and collateral warranties become especially important where, for example, the main contractor becomes insolvent, and so it is no surprise to see that the High Court has looked at the question of whether a bond and/or collateral warranty must be provided by an insolvent contractor in circumstances where the building contract has already been terminated. We also look at Wuhan Guoyu Logistics Group Co Ltd & Anor v. Emporiki Bank of Greece SA, which provides a short textbook-type summary on how on-demand bonds are intended to work in practice. Farrer (Practising As Farrer Huxley Associates) & Anor v. Wiles is a Court of Appeal case dealing with circumstances when a professional agrees to act outside of his or her competence. The Court of Appeal decision in Harrison & Ors v. Technical Sign Company Ltd & Ors illustrates the importance of being clear on the scope of services being provided and for whose benefit such services are being provided. It also serves as an important warning when providing advice and assistance on an informal or ad hoc basis. Readers will draw their own conclusions when reading the facts in these cases but the warnings are tangible and indelible. What should happen to a party which, when invited by its opponent to take part in a mediation, simply declines to respond to the invitation in any way? This was the very question answered by the Court of Appeal in PGF II SA v. OMFS Company 1 Ltd. Readers are encouraged to keep a copy of this case to hand, not least because the principles articulated in it are likely to be useful when dealing with mediation procedure. Finally, we have chosen to report a case dealing with adjudication – Twintec Ltd v Volkerfitzpatrick Ltd – because it sought to open up novel and innovative arguments to stop an adjudication that had been commenced in circumstances where litigation was also in progress. I should like to end this Editorial with a plea. Please do write and let me have your candid feedback and, indeed, please also feel free to contribute news or items that ought to reach a wider audience. The success of ICE Construction Law Quarterly is derivative to its readers, so please have a think.