- 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-
6th May 2011Haypen Pty Limited -v- Tiltcon Pty Limited [2011] NSWSC 404Procedure - application to strike out - Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 r 12.7(1) - delay - ongoing failure to comply with order to provide security – whether proceedings should be struck out for want of Despatch Legislation Cited: uniform Civil Procedure Rules Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW)
-
6th May 2011Seabay Properties Pty Ltd v Galvin Construction Pty Ltd [2011] VSC 183Building Contracts - Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic) – Adjudications conducted under Part 3 Division 2 of the Act – Whether non-claimable variations included in payment claim and adjudication determination – Whether severance of invalid part open - Whether inclusion of liquidated damages claimed by respondent in payment schedule and adjudication determination permitted - Whether inclusion of liquidated damages claimed by respondent within s. 10B(2) of the Act – Whether prematurely served payment claim and adjudication thereon valid – Whether Payment claim sufficiently identified the work done.
-
19th April 2011CRJ Services Limited v Lanstar Limited [2011] EWHC 972 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-lawnow.com/adjudication Judgment Date: 19.04.2011 SUMMARY (1) Where a document relevant to the question of whether an adjudicator has jurisdiction is served on an adjudicator but not the other party to the adjudication, this will not necessarily amount to a material breach of the rules of natural justice. (2) A material breach of the rules of natural justice relating to an adjudicator’s investigation as to his jurisdiction will not necessarily render the overall decision invalid. The investigation as to jurisdiction is separate from the substantive decision, not forming part of the enforceable decision. Generally speaking the substantive decision will only be rendered invalid by a material breach of the rules of natural justice relating to the substantive decision. (3) However,...
-
19th April 2011Lanes Group v Galliford Try [2011] EWHC 1035 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary (1) Where a contract is terminated or brought to an end by the acceptance of a repudiatory breach, an adjudication clause in the contract will survive. (2) Where a contract is a “construction contract” within the meaning of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (“the HGCRA”), the adjudication agreement in the contract cannot be repudiated as such. (3) Where, therefore, a party who had commenced an adjudication considered that the adjudicator appointed by the appointing body suffered from apparent bias, the Court would not, on the basis of arguments as to repudiation of the adjudication agreement, restrain that party from deciding not to serve the referral documentation in that adjudication and commencing...
-
14th April 2011Blazevic Holdings Pty Ltd v Warwick S Grave [2011] NSWSC 287Legislation Cited:Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 Civil Procedure Act 2005 Cases Cited: Brambles Holdings Ltd v Bathurst City Council [2001] NSWCA 61; (2001) 53 NSWLR 153 Masters v Cameron [1954] HCA 72; (1954) 91 CLR 353
-
8th April 2011Profile Projects Limited v Elmwood (Glasgow) Limited [2011] CSOH 64
-
8th April 2011Pearl Hill Pty Ltd v Concorp Construction Group (Vic) Pty Ltd [2011] VSCA 99Appeal – Construction contract – Payment claim made under s 14(1) of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 – No payment schedule served – County Court proceedings seeking judgment for payment claim – Summary judgment in favour of plaintiff – Stay of execution sought pending appeal – Whether leave to appeal required – Held: Leave to appeal required as judgment on payment claim does not finally dispose of the rights of the parties Costs – Notice of discontinuance of appeal –Appeal without merit – Indemnity costs ordered – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 r64.14(4) applied.
-
7th April 2011Lanes v Galliford Try No 2 [2011] EWHC 1234 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Summary A clause requiring the referring party to send the referral documents to the adjudicator and other side within 2 days of the appointment of the adjudicator meant that the documents had to be dispatched within 2 days, not received within 2 days; (2) The fact that some of the documents were dispatched up to 2 hours after the deadline did not mean that service had been ineffective - this was not a case where it could be said that service of the referral documents was so late as merit impeachment of the adjudication proceedings. Technology and Construction Court, Akenhead J Background The claimant sub-contractor (“Lanes”) was employed by the defendant main contractor (“Galliford”) to carry out certain works relating...
-
1st April 2011VK Property Group Pty Ltd & Ors v Conias Properties Pty Ltd & Anor [2011] QSC 54Contracts – Building, engineering and related contracts – Remuneration – Statutory regulation of entitlement to and recovery of progress payments – Payment claims – Where the applicants and first respondent entered into a contract in respect of a unit complex development proposal – Where the first respondent made three payment claims – Where payment claim 1 was accepted as invalid and payment claims 2 and 3 were adjudicated under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) (“the Act”) – Where the applicants allege the decision of the second respondent is void or should otherwise be set aside by reason of jurisdictional error – Whether the applicants have established such jurisdictional error - Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) - AE & E Australia Pty Ltd v Stowe Australia Pty Ltd...