- 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-
3rd March 2005Falgat Constructions P/L v Equity Australia Corporation P/L [2005] NSWCA 49BUILDING AND ENGINEERING CONTRACTS - effect of statutory remedies under Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 - BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY - Statutory remedies of builder - whether concurrent pursuit of statutory and common law remedies permissible - INJUNCTIONS - anti-suit - whether concurrent pursuit of statutory and common law remedies permissible under statute - whether vexatious or oppressive D - LEGISLATION CITED: - Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999
-
1st March 2005Connex South Eastern Ltd v M J Building Services Group Plc [2005] EWCA Civ 193This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes An adjudication may be brought after a construction contract has been terminated. The fact that many months, or perhaps years, have elapsed since the contract was terminated does not prevent an adjudication from being commenced. Where an adjudication is brought after an elapse of time, the adjudicator will not have jurisdiction to stay or strike out the adjudication proceedings should it be alleged that they were brought as an "abuse of process". Court of Appeal. Ward, Dyson and Carnwath LJJ 1 March 2005 This case concerned a contractor's claim for damages, including loss of profit, flowing from the termination of a contract whereunder the contractor was to supply and install CCTV cameras at a number of train stations. The...
-
24th February 2005Great Eastern Hotel Company Ltd v John Laing Construction Ltd [2005] EWHC 181
-
22nd February 2005Coordinated Construction Co v J M Hargreaves [2005] NSWSC 77BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION - progress payment - adjudicator's determination - basic and essential requirements of a valid determination - whether determination void because adjudicated amount included amounts assumed (but not decided) not to be "for" construction work - whether determination in breach of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 is unlawful - whether payment claim served on or from reference dateACTS CITED: -Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999
-
18th February 2005Belmadar Constructions Pty Ltd v Environmental Solutions International Pty Ltd ( rec & mgrs apptd) [2005] VSC 24Corporations - external administration - leave to proceed against company - proposed proceeding by unsecured creditor in order to obtain recovery from debtor of company - whether consistent with scheme of distribution of company assets. Building contract - claim by subcontractor for progress payment - contractor under external administration - judgment against contractor sought to enable recovery from principal. Corporations Act 2001 s. 444E Building and Construction Industries Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic) Part 4
-
15th February 2005Domaine Homes (Vic) Pty Ltd v Ria Building Pty Ltd [2005] VCC 111Stay application pursuant to s.57(2) of the Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995 – alternative claims for damages for breach of contract and under the Building & Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002.
-
11th February 2005Geris v CNIM [2005] EWHC 499This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes This case concerned the interpretation of an adjudicator's decision. On the facts, the court held that the adjudicator both decided that sums were due to the referring party but also that the respondent had an entitlement to set off against those sums. As the respondent therefore had a realistic prospect of successfully maintaining its defence to the enforcement proceedings, namely that the decision should not be read as giving rise to an immediate right to payment, the application to enforce the decision was dismissed. Further, although it was not a part of his reasoning, the judge remarked that the courts should only allow a defendant to rely upon an equitable set off to postpone or defeat an adjudicator's decision in the rarest and most exceptional...
-
11th February 2005Okaroo P/L v Vos Construction and Joinery P/L [2005] NSWSC 45Building and construction - Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) - whether adjudication determination void ; whether adjudicator made jurisdictional error in determining existence of a construction contract as defined in s 4 of the Act - whether there was an arrangement which was a construction contract - distinction between "contract" and "arrangement" for purposes of the Act - statutory scheme for entitlement to, liability for, and recovery of, a progress payment regardless of provision of relevant construction contract ACTS CITED: Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) ss 3; 4; 7; 8(1), 8(2)(b); 9(b); 10(1)(b), 10(2)(b); 11(1)(b); 13(1)
-
13th January 2005William Verry (Glazing Systems) Ltd v Furlong Homes Ltd [2005] EWHC 138This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes A party was not bringing a new claim by submitting a Response to the Referral Notice which included a claim for an extension of time for a period that was greater than it had indicated prior to the issue of the Adjudication Notice. In any event, the Adjudication Notice was drafted so broadly as to give the adjudicator jurisdiction to hear the dispute. His Honour Judge Peter Coulson QC, Technology and Construction Court 13 January 2005 The Claimant ("Verry") was appointed by the Defendant ("Furlong") as a design and build contractor. Completion was due in late 2003 but in the event did not take place until the end of July 2004. Furlong granted Verry two extensions of time to 2 February 2004 but Verry maintained they were entitled...