- 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-
31st January 2002C & B Scene Concept Design Ltd v Isobars Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 46This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Procedural, factual or legal errors do not in themselves mean that an adjudicator has exceeded his jurisdiction. Court of Appeal (Potter, Rix LJJ and Sir Murray Stuart-Smith) 31 January 2002 The facts and decision at first instance are set out on page 74. The claimant, CB, appealed from that decision. On appeal I did not appear and was not represented. Consequently, Sir Murray Stuart-Smith (with whom the other judges agreed) proceeded on the assumption – without deciding it - that the Recorder was correct that the adjudicator had erred and addressed only the issue as to whether the adjudicator had therefore acted outside his jurisdiction. The judge approved the formulation of the principles to be used to determine whether an adjudicator has...
-
31st January 2002Clark Contracts v Burrell Ltd No 2 [2002] A7038/00This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes An Interim Certificate under the JCT forms is not conclusive evidence as to the amount due, but the sum stated as due in it is still a "sum due under the contract" and payment of it is due in accordance with the terms of the JCT contracts Sherriff James A Taylor January 2002, Court of Session B employed C by a contract in relation to the re-development of 8 flats in Glasgow. The contract was governed by SBCC Design Portion with Quantities (September 1997 Revision) Building Contract with Scottish Supplement 1980 (Revised, July 1997) to the conditions of the Standard Form of Building Contract 1980 Edition with Quantities. The architects engaged by B issued Interim Certificate No. 11 in the gross amount of £486,529.42. Net of retention the sum...
-
22nd January 2002Karl Construction Ltd v Sweeney Civil Eng. Ltd [2002] SLT 312P/872/00This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes The adjudicator is not fettered, when applying the relevant law, by the parties' representations: it is open to the adjudicator to reach a conclusion different from that agreed by the parties. A failure by the adjudicator to seek further representations from the parties before reaching a conclusion different from their agreed position is not necessarily a breach of the rules of natural justice. Extra Division, Inner House, Court of Session Lord Marnoch, Lord Dawson, Lord Clarke 22 January 2002 The petitioners (K) brought a reclaiming motion against the dismissal by the Lord Ordinary of a petition for judicial review of an adjudicator's decision under the HGCR Act 1996. The facts of the case and decision by the Lord Ordinary are set out on page...
-
17th January 2002Shimuzi Europe Ltd v Automajor Ltd [2002] BLR 113HT 01/427This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes An adjudicator has jurisdiction to make a mistake provided he asks himself the questions that have been referred to him. If a party invites the adjudicator to correct mistakes in his decision under the slip rule and makes payment of part of the amount awarded by the adjudicator it will be found to have elected to forego any opportunity it might otherwise have had to object to the decision Judge Seymour QC, Technology and Construction Court 17 January 2002 Under the JCT Form of Contract With Contractor's Design (1998 ed) as amended, S, as contractor agreed to undertake for A, the employer, the design and construction of business work space in London. The agreement incorporated the TeCSA Rules. S issued an Adjudication Notice for various matters...
-
11th January 2002Watkin Jones v Lidl UK GMBH [2002] HT 02/121This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes There is a dispute once money is claimed unless and until the Defendant admits that the sum is due and payable. Passive failure to admit suffices to constitute a dispute.HHJ Moseley QC at the Cardiff Technology and Construction Court11 January 2002By a JCT Standard Form of Building Contract with Contractor's Design 1998 Edition incorporating various amendments, W agreed to demolish existing structures and construct a retail store for Lidl. Practical completion occurred on 22 June 2001.On 17 July 2001 W submitted an application for payment no. 11 which it alleged was an application for an interim payment under the contract. Lidl made no payment and W served a Notice of Adjudication referring what they alleged was a dispute within the meaning of...
-
27th December 2001Watkin Jones v Lidl UK GMBH [2001] HT 01/465This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Clause 30.3.3 of JCT98 WCD means that an Employer who wishes to say that sums are not due should serve a notice stating what is due. Failure to do so will mean that the Contractor is entitled to the sum for which he applied pursuant to Clause 30.3.5. HHJ Humphrey Lloyd QC, Technology & Construction Court 27 December 2001 L entered into a JCT 1998 Contract with Contractor's Design with WJ in respect of a new retail store in Bangor. In accordance with the contract WJ made an application for payment for the net sum of £340,182.24 (plus VAT). L appeared to have mistakenly treated the application as a valuation for final account and did not serve the notice required under the contract stating which amounts were due and did not pay any money...
-
11th December 2001Discain Project Services Ltd v Opecprime Developments Ltd No3 [2001] EWHC TCC 450
-
30th November 2001Isovel Contracts Ltd v ABB Technologies Ltd [2001] CH.Div HC 00 004450
-
28th November 2001Toorallie Pty Ltd v Stuart Alexander Black [2001] NSWSC 1088CORPORATIONS - application to set aside statutory demand - whether genuine offsetting claim pursuant to s.459H - debt owed to partnership of three persons - claim for unliquidated damages sought to be offset - allegedly offsetting claim in respect of actions of one of present partners when employee for which all then partners allegedly responsible, including remaining present partners ACTS CITED: Fair Trading Act 1987 - Employees Liability Act 1991 - Corporations Act 2001
-
23rd November 2001Jerome Engineering v Lloyd Morris [2002] ITC 00221This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes The Adjudicator's failure to follow the correct procedure did not make the interim award unenforceable because he had addressed the right question. In construing a Notice to Refer Disputes to Adjudication, it is permissible to have regard to the background known to the parties. His Honour Judge Cockroft, Technology & Construction Court (Leeds) 23 November 2001 J sub-contracted LM to carry out mechanical and electrical installation work. The contract incorporated the standard DOM2 Without Design Conditions of Contract. Clause 38A provided for an adjudication procedure. Disputes arose concerning variations and valuations, and J served Notice of Intention to Refer to Adjudication and formally referred the matter to Mr Maxwell McCoy. The adjudicator...