Case Study Archive

Below you can see our full case archive.

There are a total of 1503 cases in our archive
  • 31st March 2010
    Gantley Pty Ltd v Phoenix International Group [2010] VSC 106
    Building Contracts - Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic) – Progress claim under s.14 of the Act as it was prior to the operation of Act No. 42 of 2006 – Requirement to identify work in progress claim under s.14 of the Act – Degree of specificity in identification of work required - Consequences of non-compliance with identification requirement – Severance of part of payment claim open – Considerations in applying severance – Consequences of invalidity of payment claim – Test for jurisdictional error in adjudicator’s determination – Whether service of progress claim under the Act after termination of construction contract permitted – Circumstances in which progress claim may be served after construction contract terminated – Whether final payment claims  permitted to be made under...
  • 25th March 2010
    Shepherd Construction v Berners (BVI) [2010] EWHC 763 (TCC)
  • 19th March 2010
    Watpac Constructions v Austin Corp [2010] NSWSC 168
    Building and Engineering Contracts – Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 – validity of second adjudication determination –where payment claim for amounts the subject of previous adjudication determination – where determination by previous adjudicator that defendant not entitled to amounts - claimed – whether valid payment claim – whether subsequent claim before second - adjudicator precluded by principles of issue estoppel or principles of abuse of - process – whether plaintiff denied procedural fairness. - Estoppel – issue estoppel – whether earlier determination created issue estoppel – whether abuse of process for defendant to reagitate claim leading to second - adjudication determination.
  • 18th March 2010
    (1) William Hare v Shepherd Construction; (2) CR Reynolds (Construction) v Shepherd Construction [2010] EWCA Civ 283
  • 16th March 2010
    (1) Mentmore Towers Ltd (2) Good Start Ltd (3) Anglo Swiss Holdings Ltd v Packman Lucas Ltd [2010] EWHC 457 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Summary Where a referral to adjudication is unreasonable or oppressive, the Court will be willing to grant an injunction to prevent any further steps in the adjudication.  The principles that the Court will apply when deciding whether or not a referral is oppressive will be the principles that apply to litigation, having due regard to all the facts of the case.  Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart Background The three defendants (collectively “Mentmore”) were Jersey-registered companies, owned by one family trust, formed to redevelop three upmarket properties: two properties in Piccadilly, including the former Naval and Military Club (the “In and Out”), and a stately home in Buckinghamshire. ...
  • 5th March 2010
    T&M Buckley Pty Ltd v 57 Moss Rd Pty Ltd [2010] QDC 60
    Contracts – Building, Engineering and related Contracts  – Remuneration – Recovery – Where applicant entered into a construction contract with the respondent – where the applicant made a payment claim against the respondent – where the applicant applies for judgment against the respondent pursuant to s 19(2)(a)(i) of the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Queensland) – whether the payment claim was valid under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Queensland -  The Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Queensland) s 17(1), s 17(2), s 18(4), s 18(5), s 19(2)(a)(i), s 19(4)(b)(ii) - Baxbex Pty Ltd v Bickell [2009] QSC 194 Brookhollow Pty Ltd v R & R Consultants Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1 - Clarence Street Pty Ltd v Isis Projects Pty 2005] NSWCA 391 Co-ordinated Construction...
  • 4th March 2010
    Olympia Group Pty Ltd v Tyrenian Group Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 319
    Contracts – building, engineering and related contracts – general contractual principles – parties – whether the first plaintiff or Olympia Group (NSW) Pty Limited (“Olympia NSW”) was party to the construction contract within the meaning of s 4 of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (“the Act”) where Olympia NSW was the head contractor, where Olympia NSW had made payments to the defendant and where the first plaintiff was not carrying on business in the building and construction industry – whether the payment claim was effectively served on the plaintiffs – whether the payment claim was an abuse of the processes of the Act
  • 2nd March 2010
    UBC v Atholl [2010] CSOH 21
  • 26th February 2010
    SG South v Swan Yard (Cirencester) [2010] EWHC 376 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary Where an adjudicator erroneously finds that he has jurisdiction in relation to a dispute, notwithstanding the fact that there is no written contract between the parties, then exchanges in the adjudication and/or enforcement proceedings where the existence of a contract otherwise than in writing is alleged and not rebutted by the responding party can constitute a written contract and thus serve to establish the necessary jurisdiction.  Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Coulson Background The claimant contractor (“South”) sought to enforce an adjudicator’s award for £98k by way of summary judgment against the defendant employer (“Swan Yard”).   Swan Yard resisted enforcement. ...
  • 25th February 2010
    Speymill Contracts v Eric Baskind [2010] EWCA Civ 120
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Summary Where there is an arguable case that an adjudicator’s decision was procured through fraud, and that the fraud either was not or could not have been referred to during the adjudication, then the decision will not be enforceable.  However, there is a distinction between an adjudication taking place in which an allegation of fraud is made (and can be made), and where a fraud only comes to light after an adjudication has taken place.  In the latter case, fraud (or a strong allegation of fraud) could provide a basis for refusing to enforce an adjudicator’s decision.  In the former, it will not. Court of Appeal Facts The respondent in the Court of Appeal (“Mr Baskind”) engaged the claimant (“Speymill”)...