Case Study Archive

Below you can see our full case archive.

There are a total of 1503 cases in our archive
  • 16th December 2009
    Brady Constructions Pty Ltd v Everest Projects Developments [2009] VSC 622
    Civil – Appeal from Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal decision – Application for injunction restraining respondent from presenting a bank guarantee refused - Tribunal found a serious issue to be tried – Tribunal not satisfied that the balance of convenience favoured grant of injunction - Serious risk the respondent would not be able to repay the bank guarantee or any part thereof if required to do so in future – The Tribunal failed to have regard to critical material considerations affecting the real prospect of a risk of injustice – Matter remitted for further hearing by a differently constituted division of the Tribunal - Bradto Pty Ltd v State of Victoria [2006] VSCA 89; (2006) 15 VR 65 - Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; (1959) 101 CLR 298 - Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 - Appeals Costs Act 1998 s 4.
  • 11th December 2009
    Phoenix International Group Pty Ltd v Resources Combined No 2 Pty Ltd & Ors [2009] VSCA 309
    Building and Construction Law - Construction contracts entered into before 30 March 2007 - Adjudication of payment claims - Consequences of non-compliance with adjudicator's decision - Attempt to recover adjudicated amount - Attempt to challenge on ground that adjudication null and void - Whether claimant entitled to judgment nevertheless - Judge refused to enter judgment - Application for leave to appeal from that refusal - Leave to appeal refused - Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002, ss.25 and 27.
  • 9th December 2009
    Anglo Swiss & Good Start v Packman Limited [2009] EWHC 3212 (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 to allow the claimant to continue with proceedings which, if successful, would have the effect of reversing in whole or in part a prior adjudication award without having first paid the amount of such an award would seriously undermine the purpose of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 ("the Construction Act"). The Court also stayed the proceedings until the claimants had provided security for the costs of the action. However, the Court declined to order a stay of proceedings pending compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Construction and Engineering Disputes because there had already been an exchange of information and a discussion of the issues during the adjudication. Technology...
  • 8th December 2009
    Buildability v ODonnell [2009] EWHC 3196 (TCC)
  • 7th December 2009
    Fenice Investments Inc v Jerram Falkus Construction [2009] EWHC 3272 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary Where there was an irreconcilable conflict between payment provisions in the Employer’s Requirements and the payment clauses of the JCT Terms, the latter prevailed by virtue of the hierarchy clause in the JCT Terms.  A losing party who makes a challenge to an adjudicator’s decision by issuing proceedings for a declaration on a point of law must, in the ordinary case, in the meantime pay the sum found by the adjudicator to be due.  If that party fails to do so, then, whatever the result of the proceedings for a declaration, it should expect to be penalised for its default by way of both interest and costs.   Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Coulson Background Fenice Investments Inc (“Fenice”)...
  • 4th December 2009
    B J and S Paterson Pty Ltd (t/a Cooloola Civil Constructions) v Eleventh Trail Pty Ltd [2009] QDC 380
    Building and Construction – Payment Claim - Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 - Adjudicator's determination - Adjudication certificate and judgement; whether claim upon which the adjudicator’s decision is based was void; whether judgment and enforcement warrant should be permanently stayed. Legislation:Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld)
  • 2nd December 2009
    Enterprise Managed Services v Tony McFadden Utilities [2009] EWHC 3222
    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 an adjudicator appointed under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (“the Construction Act”) did not have jurisdiction to determine the net balance due between a company in liquidation and a creditor pursuant to Rule 4.90 of the Insolvency Rules 1986.   The Court also provided guidance on the approach that an adjudicator should take in relation to time limits for the making of his award where a dispute concerns a complex final account claim.    Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Coulson Background In September 2002 Thames Water Services Ltd, trading as Subterra (“Subterra”), engaged Tony McFadden Ltd (“TML”) to...
  • 27th November 2009
    Neumann Contractors P/L v Peet Beachton Syndicate Limited (No 2) [2009] QSC 383
    Procedure – Costs – Departing from the general rule – Other Cases – Failure in portion of a case – where the applicant’s application for judgment against the respondent was dismissed – where there were two issues to be determined in the proceedings: whether a payment claim complied with s 17 Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) and whether the applicant, through its employee, had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct – where the respondent was successful on the first issue but failed to discharge its onus of proof on the second issue – where the applicant contends for a costs order pursuant to r 684 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) – whether costs should follow the event.....
  • 20th November 2009
    Neumann Contractors P/L v Peet Beachton Syndicate Limited [2009] QSC 376
    Contracts – Building, Engineering and related Contracts – Remuneration – Recovery – where the 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 (Qld) – whether the payment claim was valid under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld)
  • 17th November 2009
    Allpro Building Services v C&V Engineering Services [2009] NSWSC 1247
    Building and Engineering Contracts - Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act - validity of payment claim - whether made with respect to a reference date the subject of previous claims - whether this aspect of Brodyn decided incorrectly - whether estoppel created by adjudication of earlier payment claims - whether claims replicated by separate entities - whether an abuse of process.