- 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 November 2004Transgrid v Siemens Ltd. [2004] NSWCA 395BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION - Progress payments - Building & Construction Industry Security of Payment Act - Progress claim - Adjudicator's determination - Grounds for judicial intervention - Calculation of progress payment - Meaning of "amount calculated in accordance with the terms of the contract" where contract provides for certification by superintendent - Discretion. LEGISLATION CITED: Building & Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999
-
3rd November 2004Estate Property Holdings P/L v Barclay Mowlem Construction Ltd [2004] NSWCA 393BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION - Progress payments - Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act - Progress claim - Meaning of "construction work to which the claim relates" - Whether it is the work required by the contract, the work for which payment is claimed, or each item of work for which payment is claimed LEGISLATION CITED: Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) ss.8, 13-15, 20
-
29th October 2004Emcor Drake v Costain [2004] EWHC 2439This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes For an adjudicator to reconsider facts and matters that have been previously adjudicated upon is not in itself objectionable. In this case the second adjudicator had not been invited to trespass on the first adjudicator's decision, nor did he do so. Furthermore the necessity to respond quickly to vast quantities of paperwork is one of the well-known hazards of the adjudication process and is not of itself a ground for finding that there has been an abuse of process. Judge Richard Havery QC, Technology and Construction Court 29 October 2004 The defendant ('CSJV') was the main contractor for the refurbishment of the Great Western Royal Hotel at Paddington. The claimant ('EDS') was a principal sub-contractor. The parties entered into a sub-contract...
-
28th October 2004Amec Capital Projects Ltd v Whitefriars City Estates [2004] EWCA Civ 1418This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes An adjudicator in a construction dispute is required to afford procedural fairness to the adjudicating parties. One aspect of this is that the adjudicator must not, to the fair-minded and informer observer, give the appearance of being biased in favour of one party or the other. The central issue in the unusual case of Amec Capital Projects Ltd v Whitefriars City Estates Ltd was whether an adjudicator had failed to act impartially, and thereby denied one party its right to natural justice. Court of Appeal; Kennedy, Chadwick and Dyson LJJ 28 October 2004 The relevant facts were as follows. Amec was engaged by Whitefriars to carry out construction work at a development in Central London. The contract between the parties was an amended JCT Standard...
-
28th October 2004Amec Capital Projects Ltd v Whitefriars City Estates Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 1535
-
22nd October 2004Melville Dundas v Wimpey [2004] Outer Court of Session 22nd October
-
20th October 2004Cooper v Home Productions P/L (General) [2004] NSWCTTT 597LEGISLATION: Consumer Claims Act 1998 - Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001 - Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 ISSUES: Whether an adjudication under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 - ousts the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the Consumer Claims Act 1998
-
19th October 2004CIB Properties Ltd v Birse Construction [2004] EWHC 2365This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Common sense should be applied when deciding whether a dispute had crystallised. The complexity of a claim referred to adjudication will not prevent the enforcement of an adjudicator's award, providing that the adjudicator could reach a fair decision in the light of the time limits agreed between the parties. In the event that an adjudicator makes a slip in his decision and refuses to correct it, it would not be open to the court's review. His Honour Judge Toulmin CMG QC, Technology and Construction Court 19 October 2004 Birse Construction Limited ("Birse") was the main contractor for works to be carried out at a new building owned by CIB Properties Limited ("CIB") under a contract dated 8 August 2000. CIB terminated the contract on 21 December...