- 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-
26th July 2002Fyntray Constructions Pty Ltd v Macind Drainage & Hydraulic Services Pty Ltd [2002] NSWCA 238Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 - Interpretation Act 1987
-
3rd July 2002J.T.Mackley v Gosport Marina Ltd [2002] EWHC 1315This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Section 108 HGCRA 1996 does not of itself create a right to refer a dispute, once decided by an adjudicator, to arbitration. Where reliance is placed on an arbitration clause in a contract, the ability to commence an arbitration and how this should be done falls to be determined by that arbitration clause Seymour QC 3 July 2002, TCC G contracted M to carry out certain land reclamation works at a marina. The contract incorporated the ICE conditions of contract with certain amendments. Clause 66 of the conditions concerned the settlement of disputes. It provided that a dispute arose when one party served on the engineer appointed under the contract a notice in writing, stating the nature of the dispute. It also provided that every such dispute should...
-
3rd July 2002Peninsula Balmain P/L v Abigroup Contractors P/L [2002] NSWCA 211CONTRACTS - BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS - Australian Standard General Conditions of Contract AS2124-1992 - Position of superintendent - Whether agent of principal - Whether power to extend time continues after termination of contract - Whether builder's entitlement to payment for variation depended on compliance with clause 40.2 TRADE PRACTICES - Misleading conduct - Must be apt to mislead in some non-trivial respect - Non-disclosure by principal of agreement with superintendent - Agreement, on true construction, has no relevant impact on exercise of superintendent's functions - Circumstance that commercial people may think otherwise does not make non-disclosure misleading - Whether misleading conduct either by "doing" or "refraining" - Significance of non-disclosure being "inadvertent". LEGISLATION CITED: Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss.4, 52
-
27th June 2002Diamond (Gillies Ramsay) v PJW Enterprises [2002] Scotcs 340Lady Paton, in Scotland, had to consider an adjudication concerning a professional negligence claim. PJW employed Diamond as contract administrators on a refurbishment contract in Glasgow. During the course of the works a dispute arose which resulted in the termination of Diamond's appointment. PJW employed others in Diamond's place, brought a claim for professional negligence against Diamond and then referred that claim to adjudication. The adjudicator found against Diamond who resisted paying, claiming that the adjudicator did not have the power to award damages and that an appointment as a contract administrator was not a construction contract as defined by the HGCRA. Lady Paton held that Diamond's contract administration services qualified as surveying work thereby falling within the HGCRA. By agreeing to carry out contract administration services, Diamond had entered into an agreement...
-
11th June 2002Tooma v Eaton [2002] NSWSC 514Corporations Law. Application to set aside statutory demand under s 459G of the Corporations Act. Claim that s 14 of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 meant that there was no genuine dispute. Held s 14 did not affect the matter and demand set aside.
-
30th May 2002VA Tech Wabag UK Ltd v Morgan Ltd [2002] CA 46/02This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes The fact that the pursuer (claimant) could have proceeded to adjudication to recover sums due to it did not prevent the Court granting an interim injunction to stop the defenders hindering the release of funds from a joint account. Opinion of Lord Drummond Young, Outer House, Court of Session 30 May 2002 V and M were part of a construction consortium to design, procure and construct a sludge treatment plant. Payments for the work were made into a joint account. M claimed that it had carried out ancillary services which were part of V's share of the works and proposed certain adjustments to the payment due under two payment certificates. V disputed this, and M refused to consent to or assist in the distribution of monies to V from the joint account...
-
14th May 2002Solarite v York [2002] NSWSC 411CORPORATIONS - winding up - application to have statutory demand set aside - low threshhold applicable in such cases discussed - demand set aside ACTS CITED: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)