Case Study Archive

Below you can see our full case archive.

There are a total of 1503 cases in our archive
  • 27th November 2012
    Thiess Pty Ltd v Warren Brothers Earthmoving Pty Ltd & Ors [2012] QSC 373
    Contracts - Building, Engineering and related contracts - Remuneration - Statutory Regulation of Entitlement to and recovery of progress payments - Adjudication of Payment claims - Generally - Where parties entered into contracts for building and constructions works – Where Warren Brothers Earthmoving made payment claims which were disputed by Thiess and Warren Brothers then amended the amount it had originally claimed – Where Adjudicator appointed pursuant to Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) to decide the amount of the progress payments under the progress claim and parties agree that the amount awarded by the Adjudicator is incorrect – Where Adjudicator states that he was fully aware of the parties’ submissions but admits he forgot to take them into account during his deliberations and making his decision – Whether there has been a...
  • 21st November 2012
    Chugg v Goodwin [2012] TASMC 38
    Procedure - Inferior courts - Tasmania - Local Courts - Practice - Procedure before trial – Summary Judgment, Building  and  Construction  Industry  Security  of Payment Act 2009 Magistrates Court (Civil Division) Rules 1998, r115, Simons Parsons & Co v Barker [2004] TASSC 135,  A  J  &  S  Constructions Pty  Ltd  v  Aussie Trading  House  (International)  Pty  Ltd  [1999] TASSC  77,  Woods  v  Deputy  Commissioner  of Taxation [2011] TASSC 68 applied
  • 20th November 2012
    IWD No 2 Pty Ltd v Level Orange Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 1394
    Practice and Procedure – pleadings - amendment Building and Construction - construction contract - determination by adjudicator - natural justice
  • 19th November 2012
    Rodgers Contracts (Ballynahinch) Ltd v Merex Construction Limited [2012] NIQB 94
  • 13th November 2012
    Vertase FLI Ltd v Squibb Group Ltd [2012] EWHC 3194
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit summary (1) Where an adjudicator has determined an issue in dispute between the parties, the adjudicator is not then entitled to reconsider the same issue in a separate adjudication. (2) To the extent that the subsequent decision relies upon the adjudicator’s change of mind in relation to an issue he decided in the earlier adjudication, the subsequent decision will be unenforceable. In this case, the issue of whether the main contractor was entitled to liquidated damages from his sub-contractor where he had not incurred an equivalent liability to the Employer arose in two separate adjudications and the adjudicator’s change of mind on the issue in the second adjudication rendered that decision unenforceable. Technology and Construction...
  • 13th November 2012
    BM Alliance Coal Operations Pty Ltd v BGC Contracting Pty Ltd & Ors [2012] QSC 346
    Contracts –  Building, Engineering and related Contracts – Remuneration – Statutory regulation of entitlement to and progress payments – where the applicant (“BMA”) entered into a contract with the first respondent (“BGC”) for the construction of a dam – where BGC served a payment claim on BMA pursuant to the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) – where the payment claim was referred to adjudication – where BMA contends the adjudicator’s decision is affected by three jurisdictional errors and is therefore void – whether the adjudicator fell into jurisdictional error and the adjudication should be set aside
  • 8th November 2012
    Lidl UK GmbH v R G Carter Colchester Ltd [2012] EWHC 3138
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit summary(1) The scope of the dispute referred to an adjudicator is a question of the construction of the documents and the impression they give. (2) Where an additional question, outside the scope of the dispute, is answered by an adjudicator, that part of the decision can be severed provided that the reasoning giving rise to it does not form an integral part of the decision as a whole. In this case, the additional issue addressed by the adjudicator was able to be severed leaving the remainder of the decision enforceable. (3) In order for a breach of natural justice to invalidate a decision it must be sufficiently material to the decision so as to taint the decision as a whole.  There was no material breach of natural justice in this case as the...
  • 1st November 2012
    Leighton v Arogen [2012] NSWSC 1323
    Administrative Law - Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) - application to restrain enforcement of, and to quash, a determination of an adjudicator - whether adjudicator materially denied parties natural justice by permitting the defendant to advance its claim in a way the plaintiff was not able to answer - whether adjudicator acted outside jurisdiction - whether adjudicator's determination void - whether adjudicator erred in his approach to the application of s 20(2B) and 22(2)(c) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW)
  • 23rd October 2012
    P C Harrington Contractors Ltd v Systech International Limited [2012] EWCA Civ 1371
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit summary Where, in an adjudication governed by the Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998, an adjudicator’s decision is held to be unenforceable because he has failed to follow the rules of natural justice, the adjudicator will not, subject to any provisions in his contract of engagement which expressly provide to the contrary, be entitled to payment of his fees. Court of Appeal, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Davis and Lord Justice Treacy Background PC Harrington Contractors Limited (“PCH”) was a contractor employed to carry out works at three projects, namely Wembley Stadium, King’s Waterfront, Liverpool and Kingsfield Hospital, Mansfield. It engaged Tyroddy Construction Limited (“Tyroddy”)...
  • 12th October 2012
    Thiess Pty Ltd v Warren Brothers Earthmoving Pty Ltd & Anor [2012] QCA 276
    Administrative Law – Judical Review– Grounds of review – Jurisdictional matters – where decision made by adjudicator under the Building and Construction  Industry  Payments  Act  2004  –  whether  the adjudicator had jurisdiction to determine the adjudication applications – whether the contracts were “construction contracts”  within  the  Act  –  whether  an  incorrect determination of the extent and quantum of the work that comprised “construction work” under a construction contract for the purposes of the Act was a matter of jurisdictional error  Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld), s 10, s 11