Case Study Archive

Below you can see our full case archive.

There are a total of 1503 cases in our archive
  • 21st November 2014
    Matthew Harding t/a M J Harding Contractors v Paice [2014] EWHC 3824 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit summary An Adjudicator’s Decision that a Pay Less Notice was invalid did not preclude the referral of a subsequent dispute which alleged that the amount “properly due” under a Contract was less than the amount awarded in the earlier Decision. Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart background The Claimant contractor, M J Harding Contractors (“Harding”), was employed by the Defendants, Gary George Leslie Paice and Kim Springall (“Paice and Springall”) under an amended JCT Intermediate Form of Building Contract 2011 dated 25 March 2013 (the “Contract”).  The Contract incorporated the adjudication provisions of the Scheme for Construction Contracts (the “Scheme”).  There...
  • 7th November 2014
    Eurocom Limited v Siemens PLC [2014] EWHC 3710 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit summary 1.     Where the application form requesting the nomination by the RICS of an adjudicator on a construction contract includes a fraudulent misrepresentation this invalidates the process of appointment and consequently the adjudicator appointed does not have jurisdiction. Although the application form states that the RICS will automatically copy the form to the responding party this is merely best practice and its failure to do so does not nullify the nomination. Further, if a party, in breach of contract, subverts the adjudication process in a way which goes to the heart of the appointment then the adjudicator does not have jurisdiction. 2.     By considering and deciding claims that were determined...
  • 5th November 2014
    Ku-Ring-Gai Council v Ichor Constructions Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1534
    Building and Construction - first adjudicator unable to assess defendant's delay damages claim on evidence before him - whether an issue estoppels arose - whether further adjudication application for same delay damages an abuse of process
  • 29th October 2014
    Digdeep Investments Pty Ltd v NW Constructions Pty Ltd [2014] WASAT 147
    Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA) - Application for review of decision by adjudicator to dismiss application - Whether application for adjudication was in time - Date when payment dispute arose - Contract included a time for payment clause - Section 18 of Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA) 'Time for payment' does not apply to contract - Section 17 of Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA) 'Responding to claims for payment' does apply to contract - Provisions in Sch 1, Div 5 apply with the exception of the 'time phrase' – No 'waiver' of contract term for payment within 14 days - Unilateral offer to extend payment term to 28 days.
  • 24th October 2014
    A.T Stannard v James Tobutt and Thomas Tobutt [2014] EWHC 3491 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit summary In this case, the Court (1) held that the issue of whether an adjudication between two entities could be initiated where an alleged novation of the building contract removed the contractual link between those two parties was a jurisdictional issue and not a threshold issue; (2) found that the defendant had waived the right to challenge enforcement of the adjudicator’s award on this ground; (3) refused to adjourn a hearing for summary judgment because, even if the defendant had not waived its right, the evidence filed by the defendant did not provide an evidential basis for such an argument; (4) rejected an application for indemnity costs because there was “just about an arguable point” that there was a threshold as opposed...
  • 22nd October 2014
    Eastland Truss & Timber Pty Limited v Matthew John Byrnes t/as Qualibuilt Constructions [2014] NSWSC 1461
    Building and Construction – whether adjudicator complied with obligations under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 in making determination – whether jurisdictional error Legislation Cited: Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999
  • 21st October 2014
    Broughton Brickwork Ltd v F Parkinson Ltd [2014] EWHC 4525 (TCC)
  • 21st October 2014
    R & D Building Pty Ltd v Jackson [2014] WASAT 141
    Construction Contract Act 2004 (WA) - Whether adjudication application made within time - Whether purported variation to contract in clear and unequivocal terms - Whether payment is security or retention money.
  • 20th October 2014
    Douglas Aerospace v Indistri Engineering Albury [2014] NSWSC 1445
    Adjudication applications - whether there was a valid construction contract between the parties - where name in contract not the same as name on adjudication application - where invoices issued in a different name to the name in the construction contract - whether correct specification of ACN and ABN evidence an intention that the first defendant be "Contractor" to the construction contract – whether sufficient to show construction contract between the Parties
  • 17th October 2014
    Roland Horne v Magna Design Building Limited [2014] EWHC 3380 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit SUMMARYWhen deciding on the jurisdiction of the adjudicator the Notice of Adjudication must be analysed to ascertain what dispute is being referred to adjudication. This should be considered within the context of any previous communications between the parties. In this case it was held that although the adjudicator had jurisdiction to decide whether sums were payable to the referring party, he correctly decided that he did not have jurisdiction to award sums to the responding party as a net sum, as this was not part of the dispute in question. Furthermore, the Court could not decide summarily that a specific amount was due to the responding party on the basis of the Adjudicator’s award as the Adjudicator did not actually  find that the cross...