Case Study Archive

Below you can see our full case archive.

There are a total of 1503 cases in our archive
  • 18th August 2010
    Donovan Drainage & Earthmoving v Kaipara District Council CIV-2010-488-000319
  • 18th August 2010
    Donavan Drainage & Earthmoving Ltd v Kaipara District Council Ltd CIV-2010-488-000319
  • 12th August 2010
    Moyle Construction v Stollery CIV 2009-470-889
  • 12th August 2010
    Moyle Construction Limited v Trustees of the Stollery Family Trust CIV 2009-470-889
    Section 59 of the Construction Contracts Act 2002.
  • 10th August 2010
    Aedifice Partnership v Ashwin Shah [2010] EWHC 2106 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit summary Where there is no agreement between the parties, whether express or implied, as to the power of the adjudicator to decide his own jurisdiction, then an adjudicator’s ruling on that issue will not be determinative and the challenger can defeat enforcement proceedings by showing a respectable case that the adjudicator has reached an erroneous conclusion as to jurisdiction.  One principal way of determining that there is no implied agreement is if the party objecting to the jurisdiction of the adjudicator makes a clear reservation.  No particular form of words is required to make this reservation.  Everything said and done during the course of the adjudication can be analysed to see whether a reservation was intended. Technology...
  • 6th August 2010
    Mansouri & Anor v Aquamist P/L [2010] QCA 209
    Contracts – General contractual principles – Building, Engineering and related contracts – Remuneration – Statutory regulation of entitlement to and recovery of progress payments – Progress payments – where the appellants were the registered owners of the land on which the respondent carried out work – where the respondent alleged that the appellants were liable for progress payments under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) (“BCIPA”) – where the primary judge gave summary judgment in favour of the respondent for a progress payment under s 19(2)(a)(i) BCIPA – where the appellants argued that the primary judge erred as there was a factual dispute about the existence of a construction contract – where the respondent conceded that the primary judge’s analysis...
  • 6th August 2010
    Asian Pacific Building Corporation v Aircon Duct Fabrication Pty & Ors [No 2] [2010] VSC 340
    Building contracts - Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic) – Adjudication determination made in part beyond jurisdiction – Adjudication determination declared void in part – Application to stay operation of valid part of adjudication determination on ground of alleged insolvency – Grosvenor Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd (In Administration) v Musico and Ors [2004] NSWSC 344 considered – Costs of judicial review which was successful in setting aside one of two adjudication determinations.
  • 6th August 2010
    Rahme Civil Pty Ltd v Zeater & Sons Pty Ltd [2010] NSWDC 161
    Building contracts - Construction contract for residential units - Demolition/excavation work - Damage to building by contractor's truck - Negligence of truck driver -  Payment claims -  Multiple payment claims - Need for a payment schedule to dispute claim Statutory debt - Unlicensed contractor - Whether contract enforceable - Quantum meruit - Status of contractor's unpaid progress claims - Cross-claim by builder - Cost of rectification work to building - Whether damage to building caused by truck incident -  Whether additional work causally related to truck incident - Set-off of separate verdicts - Costs
  • 30th July 2010
    Nickleby v Somerfield [2010] EWHC 1976 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit summary Where an adjudicator did in fact have jurisdiction and would have come to the conclusion that he had jurisdiction if he had been aware of all the facts, then his decision should be enforced, notwithstanding the fact that the case relied upon by the claimant in enforcement proceedings differed from the case relied upon during the adjudication. Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Akenhead Background The claimant (“Nickleby”) was engaged by the defendant (“Somerfield”) to provide management services in relation to the maintenance of a number of supermarkets for three years pursuant to a bespoke contract dated 1 May 2006.  A one-year’s extension to the contract was negotiated.  There was subsequently...
  • 29th July 2010
    Straw/Haymills v Shaftsbury House (Developments) [2010] EWHC 2597 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit summary (a) Where the claiming party to an adjudication enters administration before an adjudicator delivers his decision, this will not of itself mean the adjudicator lacks jurisdiction to make his decision. (b) Where a contract contains a provision to the effect that an adjudicator’s decision will become final and binding unless a notice is given within a specified period of time, the notice provision will not be satisfied by the mere fact that litigation concerning the contractual position is already afoot. (c) Where the decision of an adjudicator has not become final and binding then the principles applicable to the balancing of accounts on insolvency will trump the statutory obligation to comply with the decision and the decision will not...