Case Study Archive

Below you can see our full case archive.

There are a total of 1503 cases in our archive
  • 27th January 2006
    Rankilor & Perco Engineering Service Ltd v Igoe (M) Ltd [2006] Adj.L.R. 01/27
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit An adjudicator’s decision will only be unenforceable for a serious breach of the rules of natural justice in very exceptional cases.  An adjudicator who made a finding of fact on an issue raised by the parties, but which was a finding that neither party had contended for, was held not to have committed a serious breach of the rules of natural justice. His Honour Judge Gilliland QC – Queen’s Bench Division, Salford District Registry, Technology and Construction CourtBackground Igoe appointed Perco as a sub-contractor to carry out some auger boring work.  The sub-contract was a fixed price contract and the agreed term, according to Igoe, for completing the work was 10 days.  Perco encountered difficulties carrying out...
  • 23rd January 2006
    CFW Architects (A Firm) v Cowlin Construction Ltd [2006] EWHC 6 (TCC)
  • 20th January 2006
    Baris Ltd v Kajima Construction Europe (UK) Ltd. [2006] EWHC 31 (TCC)
  • 16th January 2006
    Harlow & Milner Ltd v Teasdale [2006] EWHC 54 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit The most efficient way of enforcing an adjudicator’s decision is to seek summary judgment through the Technology and Construction Court.  There are very limited grounds on which a summary judgment application may be resisted by the unsuccessful party to an adjudication.  In contrast, the commencement of bankruptcy or winding up proceedings may lead to prolongation of the point at which a judgment debt is obtained against the unsuccessful party, plus greater expense.  Ordinarily, therefore, the issue of a statutory demand will not be the appropriate means of enforcing an adjudicator’s decision. HHJ Coulson QC Technology and Construction Court The dispute giving rise to the adjudication concerned a contract, in the JCT Minor...
  • 12th January 2006
    Ardmore Construction Ltd v Taylor Woodrow Construction Ltd [2006] SCHOS3
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit In this Scottish case the decision of an adjudicator was set aside on the basis that he had not afforded natural justice to the parties to the adjudication. The adjudication arose out of a subcontract for works at Glasgow Harbour, where the Scottish edition of the Standard Form of Sub-Contract Agreement, 1998 edition, was used. The underlying dispute between the parties concerned the subcontractor’s entitlement to overtime payments. The subcontractor contended that it had been instructed by the main contractor to accelerate its works, where the need to accelerate did not arise out of any breach of contract by the subcontractor. It was contended by the subcontractor that, in reliance on the instruction, it did accelerate its works, and was...
  • 11th January 2006
    De Martin & Gasparini v State Concrete [2006] NSWSC 31
    BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – where adjudicator without notice to the parties reinvestigates matters agreed upon by the parties and determines value inconsistently with that agreement - where adjudicator without notice to the parties determines value of prior work inconsistently with determination of prior adjudicator - whether denial of natural justice. LEGISLATION CITED: Building & Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999
  • 10th January 2006
    Andrew Wallace Ltd v Artisan Regeneration Ltd [2006] EWHC 15 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit The defendants disputed an adjudicator’s award on the basis that (i) they had contracted with the claimant as an individual and not as a company, (ii) documents had been fabricated and the original contract altered and (iii) there had been no consensus to found an agreement in writing (with the result the adjudicator had no jurisdiction).  On the facts, the court held that the defendants had no real prospect of defending the claim since (i) no question had been raised as to the identity of the claimant prior to the adjudication, (ii) there was insufficient evidence to show any fraud on the claimant’s part and (iii) the defendants had throughout acted as if a written contract was in place and had waived any right to object to the adjudicator’s...
  • 29th December 2005
    Castle Inns (Stirling) Ltd v Clark Contracts Ltd [2005] ScotCS CSOH_178
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit S.108 of the HGCRA provides that an adjudicator’s decision is binding pending final determination of the dispute by legal or arbitral proceedings.  In this case, the court held that liability for the adjudicator’s fees and expenses did not constitute a “dispute” for the purposes of the HGCRA and therefore any decision by the adjudicator on fees did not relate to a dispute capable of being finally determined by the court.  The legal basis for repayment of any sums following final determination of a dispute would be pursuant to an implied term for the purpose of giving business efficacy to the contract.Lord Drummond Young - Outer House, Court of SessionBackground Castle appointed Clark to carry out certain works. ...
  • 23rd December 2005
    SCI Development & Construction Ltd v NZ Built Ltd HC AK CIV 2005-404-3656 [2005] NZHC
  • 19th December 2005
    All In One Building & Refurbishments Ltd v Makers UK Ltd [2005] EWHC 2943
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit The time when a payment falls due under an interim or final application will not be determinative as to whether a dispute has arisen; in this case it was the entitlement to payment that was being denied and therefore it was irrelevant that the time for payment against the application had not yet lapsed. Criticisms as to how an adjudicator deals with apparent contradictions in evidence are not a matter for the court. Were it to have been demonstrated that the company was in insolvent liquidation then it would have been appropriate to refuse summary judgment. Judge David Wilcox Technology and Construction Court All in One Building and Refurbishments Ltd ("AIO") were engaged by Makers UK Ltd ("Makers") in November 2004 as subcontractors to refurbish...