- 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-
4th October 2001Oakley (William) v Airclear Environmental Ltd [2001]This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Absent a contract, it may nonetheless be possible to ground an adjudicator's jurisdiction by showing an ad hoc adoption by the parties of adjudication as a dispute resolution mechanism by way of an estoppel by convention Etherton J, Chancery Division 4 October 2001 S&N employed Oakley and nominated AEL as mechanical and air-conditioning sub-contractors. No formal sub-contract was concluded. Oakley deducted loss and expense and other sums from AEL's stage payments. AEL said that Oakley could not do this because there was no sub-contract. Oakley asked the President of the RICS to appoint an arbitrator to resolve the dispute, citing clause 35B of NAM/SC (which would have been incorporated if there was a sub-contract). AEL approached the RIBA to...
-
2nd October 2001Robert McAlpine (Sir) v Pring St Hill [2001] TCC 779This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes An adjudicator's decision under the JCT contracts is likely to be enforced, and a stay will not be granted, in circumstances where the defendant has a counterclaim which is the subject of an adjudication if no effective withholding notice has been served. The sum awarded by the adjudicator will be treated as an amount due under the contract. Moseley QC 2nd October 2001, TCC R was the main contractor for the construction of a building and engaged P as sub-contractor on JCT standard terms. The contract provided for the referral of disputes to an adjudicator and that the parties would give effect to the decision of the adjudicator. The adjudicator found that P had damaged glass, which had already been installed by R, during the sub-contract works and...
-
27th September 2001Paul Jensen Ltd v Stavely Industries [2001] WN 101245This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes The Adjudicator was entitled to his fees, where he decided that he did not have jurisdiction and did not proceed with the adjudication. There was no suggestion of default or misconduct. It did not matter that he may have been wrong in concluding that he had no jurisdiction. District Judge Donnelly at Wigan County Court 27 September 2001 This case arose from a referral by S of a dispute between them and Salford City Council to Paul Jensen, of the Claimant company (PJL), to act as Adjudicator. Mr Jensen was asked to consider whether he had jurisdiction to hear the adjudication and he dealt with this matter as a preliminary issue. Mr Jensen took the view that he did not have jurisdiction to hear the adjudication. S alleged that the Mr Jensen was wrong...
-
26th September 2001Pro-Design v New Millenium Experience Co Ltd [2001] LV 190224This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes The adjudicator's powers were constrained under the HGCRA to decide on issues related only to the construction work. Whilst claims under the HGCRA should normally go through, there is no overriding objective upon the court to ensure that fraudulent claimants should benefit from their fraud. His Honour Judge MacKay, Technology and Construction Court, Liverpool 26 September 2001 NME entered into a sub-contract with PD for PD to construct lighting systems in the Millennium Dome. A dispute arose over the sums due to PD and was referred to adjudication. NME refused to pay the sums decided on by the adjudicator and PD applied for summary judgment. The Judge refused the application for summary judgment, and commented that this matter was likely to proceed...
-
19th September 2001Durabella Ltd v Jarvis.J & Sons Ltd [2001] 1998 ORB 33 TCC
-
18th September 2001Hawkins Construction v Macs Industrial Pipework [2001] NSWSC 815STATUTES - interpretation - Building and Construction Industry (Security of Payments) Act 1999 NSW - whether Act applies to sub-contracts when head contracts procede the ActCORPORATIONS - statutory demands - demand signed by employed solicitor of firm acting for creditors - whether effective ACTS CITED: Building and Constructions Industry (Security of Payments) Act 1999 (NSW) s5, s6, s13(2)(a)&(c), Schedule 2 - Companies (New South Wales) Code - Corporations Law s459E(2)(f), s459H(2),(3) & (5)
-
14th September 2001Baulderstone Hornibrook P/L v HBO+DC P/L [2001] NSWSC 821[PRACTICE & PROCEDURE] - Summary Judgment applications in the Construction List - Practice Notes - Administration of List - Application to refer Motion for Summary Judgment to call over - Whether referral is consistent with the just, quick and cheap resolution of the litigation.ACTS CITED: Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (1999) (NSW)
-
29th August 2001Britcon (Scunthorpe) v Lincolnfields [2001] HT 01/259This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes It was not for the Judge to decide whether the adjudicator was right as a matter of law or in evaluating the evidence submitted. His Honour Judge Thornton QC, Technology and Construction Court 29 August 2001 L engaged B to carry out infrastructure works. L failed to make the final payment and B issued notice of adjudication, seeking a decision as to whether payment should be made based on an interim valuation certificate. L argued that, pursuant to an oral collateral agreement made by the parties' representatives prior to the principal contract being made, the money was held in an Escrow Account and could not be released until certain works were substantially complete, and in any case, it had incurred direct losses which it was seeking to recover...
-
13th August 2001Parsons Plastics v Purac Ltd [2001]This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes If the contract terms provide for it, a party may be entitled to set-off a counterclaim where a contract is not governed by HGCRA against an adjudicator's decision if that counterclaim has not been determined by the adjudicator. LJ Pill, LJ Mummery and LJ Latham, Court of Appeal, Civil Division 12th April 2002 Purac were the main contractors under a contract for the design and construction of a sewerage plant. Purac entered into a written sub-contract with Parsons for the supply of an odour control package at the works. Purac became dissatisfied with Parson's lack of progress and in an attempt to expedite matters made a payment direct to Parsons' steel supplier. Purac then declined Parsons' application for payment 3 under milestones of Schedule...