- 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-
15th February 2006Energy Australia v Downer Construction (Australia) P/L [2006] NSWSC 52BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – Contracts – Payment claims – Adjudication – Challenge to validity of adjudication application and adjudication determination – Basic and essential requirements for application and determination – Whether differences between payment claim and adjudication application rendered application invalid – Whether adjudicator determined claim substantially different to payment claim – Whether failure to determine payment claim rendered determination void – Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 ss 13, 14, 17, 20, 22, 25. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial Review – Judisdictional error – Whether determination a bona fide exercise of power – Whether denial of natural justice ACTS CITED: Building & Construction Security of Payment Act 1999 s 13(2); s 14; s 17(1), (3);...
-
13th February 2006Parker Construction Management (NZ) Limited v Aden Electrical Limited HC WN CIV-2005-485-1334 [2006] NZHC 61
-
10th February 2006Accrete Constructions P/L v Kinsley Constructions P/L [2005] NSWLC 14Procedure - Motion to set aside judgment - Whether judgment entered under Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (BCISP Act) irregularly - Whether BCISP Act requires qualifications of adjudicators to be prescribed by regulation - Whether adjudicators to be prescribed by regulation - Whether adjudicator acted within the scope of authority in dealing with contract and progress payment claim - Whether assessed claim on its merits LEGISLATION CITED: Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 ss 7, 9- 12, 13, 17, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25.
-
9th February 2006John Roberts Architects Ltd v Parkcare Homes (No. 2) Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 64This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes To interpret an adjudication clause, which stated that an adjudicator could award a party its legal costs “as part of his decision", as meaning that the adjudicator could not award costs where he did not give a substantive contested decision as to the matters referred to him, led to an odd and uncommercial result. On the proper construction of the clause, the adjudicator was entitled to award a party its costs despite the fact that he had not made a substantive decision. Lord Justice May, Lord Justice Keene and Lord Justice Baker – Court of Appeal (Civil Division) In October 2002, Parkcare Homes employed John Roberts Architects (JRA) to provide architectural services in relation to certain building works. A dispute arose which...
-
9th February 2006Cunningham v Collett & Farmer (a firm) [2006] EWHC 148 (TCC)
-
6th February 2006Interserve Industrial Services Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd [2006] EWHC 741 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes This case constitutes a reminder that sums awarded in an adjudication are (absent special circumstances) immediately payable. The losing party cannot withhold sums awarded by the adjudicator on the grounds that it anticipates being awarded a similar sum in a future adjudication with the same party.Mr Justice Jackson – Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction CourtThe Highways Agency employed Nuttall to refurbish a viaduct on the M1. Nuttall engaged Cleveland to carry out certain works. Cleveland in turn sub-contracted part of the job to Interserve. The project was subject to various delays and the parties engaged in a series of adjudications. Cleveland came under an obligation to pay sums awarded...
-
2nd February 2006Quietfield Ltd v Vascroft Contractors Ltd [2006] EWHC 174 (TCC)
-
31st January 2006Pacific General Securities Ltd v Soliman & Sons Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 13CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – Resolution of disputes – Adjudication – Determinations – Judicial review – minimum requirements for validity – whether 12-month limit for serving a claim is a basic and essential requirement non-compliance with which results in invalidity – held it is not – whether payment claim made within 12 months of performance of the latest of the construction work to which it related – whether specificity in payment claim is basic and essential requirement non-compliance with which results in invalidity – held it is not – whether payment claim sufficiently specified the construction work in respect of which it was made - whether service on receiver of respondent required – held it is not – whether adjudicator failed to have regard to relevant submissions –...
-
30th January 2006Brookhollow P/L v R&R Consultants P/L & Philip Davenport [2006] NSWSC 1BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY – When is a payment claim invalid for purposes of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) – authorities and principles discussed – what are the requirements of s.22(2) – what must an adjudicator show in reasons for determination when adjudication process is undefended. ACTS CITED: Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) – s.11, s.13, s.14, s.15, s.17, s.20, s.22, s.23, s.24, s.25, s.32.
-
27th January 2006Michael John Construction Ltd v Golledge [2006] EWHC 71This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Adjudication is a procedure which is effective between parties to a construction contract. In cases where unincorporated association enter into construction contracts it is not always clear as to who, personally, is liable under the contract. This can give rise to difficulties if, mistakenly, a party attempts to bring an adjudication against a person who is not a party to that contract. On the facts of the case, the claimant could elect to enforce the relevant adjudicator’s decision against either the association’s trustees, as principal, or against the person who had signed the contract (either as their agent or, on a personal basis). The judge rejected the defendants’ other defences to enforcement. The...