Case Study Archive

Below you can see our full case archive.

There are a total of 1503 cases in our archive
  • 10th October 2012
    Greentherm Mechanical Services Limited v KDJ Developments Limited [2012] EWHC 3525 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit summary Where the parties’ submissions were not always consistent or easy to read, and ranged over a number of topics relating to the subcontract, the documents relied on as notices and the provisions of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 as amended by the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (the “Act”), the Adjudicator could not be said to have failed either to comply with natural justice or, in this context, to have exceeded his jurisdiction on the basis that there was a clear agreed position between the parties and that he had proceeded in a way contrary to that position. Additionally, to the extent that there was anything in his decision which was inconsistent with a case which...
  • 9th October 2012
    Transfield Services (Australia) Pty Limited v Nortask Pty Ltd and Anor [2012] QSC 306
    Administrative Law – Judicial Review – Grounds of Review – Procedural Fairness – Generally – where the first respondent made a payment claim to the applicant – where a claim was made for Variation 17a relating to rock breaking – where an adjudicator’s decision was made pursuant to Building Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) – where the applicant seeks a declaration that the adjudicator’s decision is void because the adjudicator breached the rules of procedural fairness in concluding that the first respondent had engaged another firm as a nominated subcontractor under the building contract when it was neither the applicant nor the respondent – where the first respondent conceded a breach of the rules of procedural fairness – where the first respondent argued it was not a material denial of procedural...
  • 8th October 2012
    Alstom Power Ltd v Somi Impianti SRL [2012] EWHC 2644
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit summary In the case, the Court decided that, SOMI (the Defendant) had to make the written declaration requested by Alstom (the Claimant). This declaration stated that all equipment and materials required for the execution and completion of the subcontracted works; including goods, materials, plant and equipment brought to the site by the Defendant whether owned, leased or hired by Defendant are deemed to be the property of the Claimant. Furthermore, the declaration clarified that the Defendant is not entitled to remove such items from the site. Technology and Construction Court, Queen’s Bench Division, The Hon Mr Justice Akenhead Background Alstom Power Limited (“Alstom”) was engaged as main contractor by RWE Npower plc (“RWE”)...
  • 8th October 2012
    Nairn Constructions Pty Ltd v Industrial Roof Technology [2012] QCAT 501
    Commercial building dispute – adjudication under Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 – whether claims for variations valid under the construction contract – whether amount paid pursuant to adjudication ought to be repaid – concession that variation overstated – affect of entire agreement clause, Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004, ss 7, 31, 100
  • 28th September 2012
    Clark Electrical Ltd v JMD Developments (UK) Ltd [2012] EWHC 2627
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit summary If two people agree to submit a dispute to a third person, they confer jurisdiction on that person to determine the dispute. Whether a party has agreed to confer jurisdiction on such third person is a question of fact. Where, as here, the agreement is said to derive from correspondence, the Court must construe the correspondence in accordance with the ordinary canons of construction to determine whether there has been a submission. In the present case it was impossible to interpret an e-mail sent by the defendant to the Adjudicator as a submission to the jurisdiction of the adjudicator in the full sense. Nor did payment of an appointment fee by the defendant to the adjudicator have that effect. Technology and Construction Court, His Honour...
  • 22nd September 2012
    All Roofs Pty Ltd and Southgate Corporation Pty Ltd [2012] WASAT 178
    Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA) - Payment claim - Payment dispute - Claim arising under construction contract - Payment due under construction contract - Contract of variation - No variation or no oral variation term in original contract - Consideration and certainty for valid contract of variation - Alleged contract of variation not for extra work or work 'outside the contract' - No consideration for variation of contract - Claim in estoppel or unjust enrichment is not a claim under the construction contract
  • 20th September 2012
    Product Development Projects Pty Ltd v Owners Corporation PS408909U [2012] VCC 1335
    Contract - building and construction industry – summary judgment – architectural services for owners corporation – whether construction contract – whether charge rate agreed- whether demand under Act served – application dismissed- Building Industry Security of Payment Act 2002
  • 14th September 2012
    Walton Construction (Qld) P/L v Plumber by Trade P/L & Ors (No 2) [2012] QSC 280
  • 13th September 2012
    State of Queensland v T & M Buckley P/L [2012] QSC 265
    Administrative Law – Judicial Review - Grounds of Review – Jurisdictional matters – where first respondent served payment claim on applicant – where applicant served payment schedule in response to payment claim and matter referred to adjudication – where applicant seeks declaration that adjudication decision is void by reason of jurisdictional error – where applicant submitted that no reference date accrued pursuant to   Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004  which resulted in the payment claim being invalid and the adjudication decision being void – whether accrual of the statutory reference date is conditional upon the prior delivery of the statutory declaration – whether the adjudication decision was void Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004  (Qld), s 12, s 99, Schedule 2 Corporations...
  • 12th September 2012
    Walton Construction (Qld) P/L v Plumber by Trade P/L & Ors [2012] QSC 264
    Administrative Law – Judicial Review – Grounds of review – Jurisdictional matters – where applicant sought declaration that payment claim under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 and/or adjudication decision on it were void for jurisdictional error – where applicant contended that payment claim was invalid and that adjudicator lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate upon it because the claimant was not licensed under the   Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991  – whether an enforceable contract within the meaning of BCIPA existed between the applicant and first respondent – where the first respondent was not licensed under the QBSA Act – whether the adjudication decision was void Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004  (Qld), s 12, s 17, s 31, schedule 2  Queensland Building Services...