- Home
- Nomination
- UK Cases
- Overseas Cases
- Panel
- Guidance
- Glossary
- Legislation
- England & Wales
- Wales
- Scotland
- Northern Ireland
- Australia (Australian Capital Territory)
- Australia (New South Wales)
- Australia (Northern Territory)
- Australia (Queensland)
- Australia (Southern Territory)
- Australia (Tasmania)
- Australia (Victoria)
- Australia (Western Australia)
- Eire
- Isle of Man
- Malaysia
- New Zealand
- Singapore
- Links
- Contact Us
Case Study Archive
Below you can see our full case archive.
There are a total of 1503 cases in our archive-
25th August 2011Owners Strata Plan 61172 v Stratabuild Ltd [2011] NSWSC 1000Administrative Law - judicial review - jurisdictional error - natural justice or procedural fairness - relief - declaration - application for review of validity of an adjudication application pursuant to the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 ('the Act') – declaration sought that the adjudicator's determination was void - application to have the adjudicator's decision quashed – adjudicator failed to consider adjudication respondent's submissions referred to in the reasons of the payment schedule – adjudicator misconstrued the Act and failed to accord procedural fairness to the plaintiff.
-
18th August 2011Carillion Utility Services Limited v SP Power Systems Limited [2011] CSOH 139Under a framework agreement Carillion carried out the excavation, backfilling and reinstatement of works and installed electricity and ancillary cables for SP. Following an adjudicator's decision regarding Carillion's entitlement to payment it took action to enforce the decision. SP challenged the adjudicator's decision asserting that he had failed to comply with the rules of natural justice in the method which adopted to quantify Carillion's claim. SP claimed that the adjudicator did not adopt the method of quantification which Carillion had put forward and which SP criticised. Instead he had used his own experience of what would constitute reasonable commercial rates, made an assumption about the additional equipment used by Carillion and applied rates which he selected without giving the parties an opportunity to consider and comment on his proposed methodology and the material...
-
8th August 2011PHD Modular Access Services v Seele GmbHDuring an adjudication, the seventh between the parties, PHD sought disclosure and pre-claim disclosure under CPR Part 31. Proceedings had to be anticipated and not just be a possibility. There had to be a real prospect that there would be proceedings between the parties. PHD had been successful in its adjudications and there was no indication that Seele intended to take things further and challenge the decision. It would be odd if PHD as the succesful party were considering proceedings to hold on to those decisions where there was no indication that the unsuccessful party was going to chaslleneg them. The judge was not therefore convinced that there was a real prospect of proceedings and that as a matter of discretion it would not yet be appropriate to issue such an order on disclosure.
-
8th August 2011DJE Building Services Pty Ltd v Insurance Australia Limited [2011] NSWDC 95Residential building work - Construction contract Arrangement - Recovery of progress payments - Legislation Cited: Home Building Act 1989 - Home Building Regulation 2004 - Civil Liability Act 2002 - Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 - Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 Cases Cited: Olbourne v Excell Building Corp Pty Limited [2009] NSWSC 349 - Okaroo Pty Ltd v Vos Construction Joinery Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 45 - Re British Basic Slag Ltd's Agreements [1963] 1WLRS 727 - Levadetes Pty Ltd v Iberian Artisans Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 641
-
5th August 2011Georgiou Group Pty Ltd and MCC Mining (Western Australia) Pty Ltd [2011] WASAT 120Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA) - Whether repetition of claims in subsequent progress claims are new claims - Whether the legislation or contract permits repetition of claims - Whether previous adjudications required dismissal under s 31(2)(a)(iii) Legislation: Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA), s 3, s 4, s 4.3, s 6, s 9, s 10, s 11, s 25, s 25(b), s 26, s 26(1), s 26(2)(c), s 31(2)(a), s 31(2)(a)(i) - (iv), s 31(2)(b), s 38, s 41, s 45(1), s 45(3), s 46(1), s 46(3), s 53, Pt 2 Div 2; Construction Contracts (Security of Payments) Act 2004 (NT)
-
21st July 2011Jerram Falkus v Fenice Investments Inc [2011] EWHC 1935 (TCC)Hybrid CPR Part7/Part8 procedure. Consideration of conclusivity arguments in regard to the JCT D&B Form 2005. Adjudicator's decision after the submission of the Final Account and Final Statement is conclusive if not challenged within the 28 day period stated in Clause 1.9.4
-
14th July 2011Re Graham Anstee-Brook; Ex Parte Mount Gibson Mining Ltd [2011] WASC 172Prerogative writ - Certiorari - Order nisi - Threshold for grant – Jurisdictional error - Reasons of adjudicator - Authority of Superintendent's Representative - Procedural fairness - Denial - Privative clause. Legislation:Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA)
-
13th July 2011Hyder Consulting v Carillion Construction [2011] EWHC 1810 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-lawnow.com/adjudication Judgment date: 13 July 2011 SUMMARY (1) It is the decision of the adjudicator (including any findings that are essential components of the decision) that is binding on the parties, not his reasoning. (2) In this case, an adjudicator’s conduct in adopting a methodology for the calculation of his award that was different from those put forward by the parties in their submissions without giving the parties an opportunity to comment on it did not amount to a breach of the rules of natural justice. Both parties had made submissions on the relevant terms of the contract in relation to the calculation and the adjudicator did not rely on any information that the parties had not had an opportunity to consider. Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart.BACKGROUNDIn...
-
11th July 2011National Plant and Equipment Pty Ltd v HM Hire Pty Ltd [2011] QDC 172Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004, s 31 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, s 667(2), s 807 Application to set aside an assertedly irregularly entered judgment; being a registered adjudication certificate – there is no order of the court or judgment to be set aside - as Act required, affidavit supplied with the certificate showed payments off the adjudicated amount
-
6th July 2011Fenice Investments v Jerram Falkus Construction [2011] EWHC 1678 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-lawnow.com/adjudication Judgment date: 6 July 2011 SUMMARY Where a party had paid the fees of an adjudicator which the adjudicator had ordered should be paid by the other party, he was entitled to recover those fees from that other party provided that they were reasonable. On the facts of this case it could not be argued that the fees were not reasonable.Technology and Construction Court, Judge Waksman Q.C.BACKGROUND Fenice Investments Inc (“Fenice”) employed Jerram Falkus Construction Limited (“Jerram”) as a contractor to build five residential properties, using the JCT design and build standard form. The contract provided that the Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998 (“the Scheme”) would apply if the parties wished...