- 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-
5th February 2010Queensland Bulk Water Supply Authority t/a Seqwater v McDonald Keen Group P/L (in liq) & Anor [2010] QCA 7Contracts – Building, Engineering and related Contracts – Remuneration – Statutory Regulation of Entitlement to and recovery of progress payments – where adjudication of claim for recovery of a progress payment – where adjudicator allowed recovery – where judgment obtained by filing adjudicator’s certificate – where legislation prohibited challenge to adjudicator’s decision – whether application for declaration that adjudicator’s decision void and for order setting aside judgment amounted to impermissible collateral attack on judgment. - Arbitration – Conduct of the Arbitration Proceedings – Powers, Duties and Discretion of Arbitrator – Generally – where legislation specified matters an adjudicator must take into account in making a determination – where adjudicator required...
-
29th January 2010Banner Holdings v Colchester Borough Council [2010] EWHC 139 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes SUMMARY Provisions of a construction contract that limit the right of the adjudicator to vary or overrule a decision to terminate will fall foul of s.108 of the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act (“the Act”). In such a case, the adjudication provisions of Part I of the Scheme for Construction Contracts (“the Scheme”) will be implied into the contract between the parties. The Scheme will be implied in its entirety, rather than in a piecemeal manner, even if only a few of the adjudication provisions in the contract fail to comply with the Act. Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Coulson Background Banner Holdings Ltd (“Banner”) was engaged by Colchester Borough Council (“CBC”)...
-
22nd January 2010ROK Building Limited v Celtic Composting Systems [2010] EWHC 66 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary In this case the Court held that trying to argue that an adjudicator had failed to apply the rules of natural justice on the basis that the weight of evidence was such that no reasonable adjudicator could have come to the decision he reached was “an almost pointless exercise” (given the wide jurisdiction given to the adjudicator to make a decision which is wrong in fact and/or law). The Court also held that the slip rule in the CIC Model Adjudication Procedure did not give the adjudicator the power to correct his decision so as to wholly reconsider and re-draft substantive parts of it and effectively change his mind on material points of principle. Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Akenhead Background This...
-
21st January 2010Supablast v Story Rail Limited [2010] EWHC 56 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary This case addressed issues of jurisdiction in the context of adjudication decision enforcement proceedings where there are or may be disputes arising under two contracts between the parties that are referred to a single adjudicator. The Court held that the defendant had no real prospect of successfully arguing that there were two contracts, or of resisting an argument that it was estopped from so arguing. Further, the adjudicator had had jurisdiction to decide whether there were one or two contracts. Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Akenhead Background Story Rail Ltd (“Story”) was engaged by Network Rail in 2008 to carry out refurbishment works on a railway viaduct in St. Helens. Story invited...
-
19th January 2010Origin Energy Resources (Kupe) v Tenex Alliance New Zealand Ltd and Green CIV 2010-404-00106
-
15th January 2010Tenix Alliance P/L v Magaldi Power P/L [2010] QSC 7Contracts – Building, engineering and related contracts – Remuneration – Statutory regulation of entitlement to and recovery of progress payments – Validity of payment claim – Claim made after reference date not invalid Contracts – Building, engineering and related contracts – Remuneration – Statutory regulation of entitlement to and recovery of progress payments – Prolongation costs for period after payment claim – Not costs of construction work Contracts – Building, engineering and related contracts – Remuneration – Statutory regulation of entitlement to and recovery of progress payments – Validity of payment schedule – Interpretation of schedule – Statement of amount proposed to be paid – Statement of reasons for withholding part of amount claimed – Non-compliance with statutory...
-
12th January 2010National Vegetation Management Solutions Pty Ltd v Shekar Plant Hire Pty Ltd [2010] QSC 3Contracts – Building, Engineering and related Contracts – Remuneration – Statutory Regulation of entitlement to and recovery of Progress Payments – where respondent was awarded a contract by Powerlink Queensland to carry out land clearing for a power transmission line – where respondent engaged applicant to carry out part of its contract – where applicant submitted invoice to respondent claiming $511,324.44 – where applicant seeks orders that respondent pay it $511,324.44, being a debt owing pursuant to Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 1994 (Qld) – where by letter to applicant headed “Without Prejudice” respondent’s solicitor disputed amount claimed and offered to pay lesser amount – whether respondent’s solicitor’s letter a “payment schedule” within the meaning of...
-
12th January 2010National Vegetation Management Solutions P/L v Shekar Plant Hire P/L [2010] QSC 3Contracts – Building, Engineering and related Contracts – Remuneration – Statutory Regulation of entitlement to and recovery of Progress Payments – where respondent was awarded a contract by Powerlink Queensland to carry out land clearing for a power transmission line – where respondent engaged applicant to carry out part of its contract – where applicant submitted invoice to respondent claiming $511,324.44 – where applicant seeks orders that respondent pay it $511,324.44, being a debt owing pursuant to Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 1994 (Qld) – where by letter to applicant headed “Without Prejudice” respondent’s solicitor disputed amount claimed and offered to pay lesser amount – whether respondent’s solicitor’s letter a “payment schedule” within the meaning...