Case Study Archive

Below you can see our full case archive.

There are a total of 1503 cases in our archive
  • 22nd February 2013
    Skilltech Consulting Services Pty Ltd v Bold Vision Pty Ltd [2013] TASSC 3
    Contracts – Building, engineering and related contracts – Remuneration – Statutory regulation of entitlement to and recovery of progress payments – Payment claims – Validity – Requirement to specify construction work in sufficient detail to enable assessment of claim.
  • 22nd February 2013
    Relative Mirait Services Pty Ltd v Midcoast Under Road Boring Pty Ltd
    Leave to Appeal - application for leave to appeal from Local Court to the Supreme Court - s 40(1), Local Court Act 2007 (NSW) - no question of mixed fact and law raised by the appeal - no denial of procedural fairness - magistrate correctly applied test for implying terms contained in Byrne and Frew v Australian Airlines Ltd (1995) 185 CLR 410 - magistrate did not rely on an implied term of law but correctly implied the term based on fact – magistrate did not draw an inference from facts that could not reasonably be drawn - leave refused
  • 14th February 2013
    Williams v Concreting Services [2013] NSWSC 85
    Building & Construction - Building Contracts - adjudication - interlocutory injunction – whether payment into court of adjudicated amount should be ordered
  • 8th February 2013
    AMEC Group Limited v Secretary of State for Defence [2013] EWHC 110
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit summary In this case a party had challenged an adjudicator’s decision by referring the dispute to arbitration under the contract. Dissatisfied with the arbitral tribunal’s decision, it then sought permission to appeal the tribunal’s award on a point of law. Permission was refused as the Court did not consider that s69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 had been fulfilled. Specifically, the dispute in question was not of general public importance and the arbitrator’s decision was not obviously wrong or open to serious doubt.  Technology and Construction Court, The Hon Mr Justice Coulson Background Pursuant to a contract dating from March 2000, the Secretary of State for Defence (“SOSD”) engaged AMEC Group Ltd (“AMEC”)...
  • 6th February 2013
    Matrix Projects (Qld) Pty Ltd v Luscombe [2013] QSC 4
    where decision made by adjudicator under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) – whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction to determine the adjudication application – whether the claim was in respect of one contract or arrangement for the carrying out of construction work – whether the adjudicator had performed his duty of assessing the value of the construction work – whether the adjudicator had accorded natural justice in respect of his assessment of the value of the construction work – whether the adjudicator’s errors went to his jurisdiction under the Act
  • 5th February 2013
    HM Hire Pty Ltd v National Plant and Equipment Pty Ltd & Anor [2013] QCA 6
    Contracts – Building , Engineering and related contracts – Remuneration – Statutory Regulation of  Entitlement to and recovery of progress payments – Adjudication of Payment Claims
  • 4th February 2013
    Gibson (Banbridge) Limited v Fermanagh District Council
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit Summary (1) Where a claim has been submitted and discussions ensue between the contractor and the contract administrator, a reasonable time must be allowed for the contract administrator to prepare a response before it can be concluded that a dispute has arisen. In this case, however, a project manager’s assessment should have been made long before the notice of adjudication was issued and the adjudicator therefore had jurisdiction to decide the claim.(2) Breaches of rules of natural justice or procedural fairness will be material where the Adjudicator has failed to afford to a party a reasonable opportunity to respond to the case being made by the other party. In this case, the period allowed by the Adjudicator to the respondent to respond to...
  • 29th January 2013
    Arcadis UK Limited v May and Baker Limited (t/a Sanofi) [2013] EWHC 87
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit summary (1) It is not improper for a party to an adjudication to refer a previous adjudicator’s decision to a later adjudicator or for the later adjudicator to consider it. (2) It may be a breach of the rules of natural justice for an adjudicator to decide a dispute on a basis that was not put forward by either party and without allowing the parties to comment. However, the fact that the adjudicator was persuaded that the correct answer lay between two figures put forward by the parties on an evidential basis and decided to split the difference down the middle could not be considered a breach of natural justice. (3) An adjudicator is not required to refer in his decision to every point raised by each party except in so far as it is necessary...
  • 25th January 2013
    Prime City Investments Pty Limited v Paul Jones & Associates Pty Limited & anor [2013] NSWSC 2
    Corporations - External administration - winding up in insolvency - creditor's statutory demand - setting aside - whether application to set aside served within time -where demand based on judgment arising from registration of adjudication certificate under Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act - whether offsetting claim
  • 28th December 2012
    SW Global Resourcing Limited v Morris & Spottiswood Limited [2012] CSOH 200