- 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-
17th November 2009Allied P&L Limited v Paradigm Housing Group Limited [2009] EWHC 2890This 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 had no jurisdiction to decide that part of a dispute which had not crystallised as at the date of the notice of adjudication. The Court held that such matters were not consequential upon and incidental to the claims which had been asserted and the fact that it must have been obvious that there would be a dispute about such matters was insufficient to enable the claimant to assert that there was a dispute. But the Court nevertheless enforced the adjudicator’s award because the respondent had not made an effective reservation of its position in relation to the jurisdictional challenge that it was now seeking to make. Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice...
-
12th November 2009Coventry Scaffolding v Lancsville Construction [2009] EWHC 2995This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes SUMMARY The Court gave guidance as to the steps that a party seeking to enforce an adjudicator’s decision should take with a view to saving costs and court time where a losing party to an adjudication does not participate in enforcement proceedings. Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Akenhead Background Coventry Scaffolding Company (London) Ltd (“Coventry”) was employed as sub-contractor by Lancsville Construction Ltd (“Lancsville”) to provide scaffolding for works undertaken by Lancsville as main contractor. There were disputes between the parties involving delays and entitlements to payment under interim applications. There were two adjudications arising from the disputes, both decided...
-
4th November 2009Reed Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd v Martinek Holdings Pty Ltd [2009] QSC 345Contract – Building, Engineering and related Contract – Remuneration – Statutory Regulation of Entitlement to and recovery of progress payments – where the applicant served on the respondent a payment claim pursuant to s 17 of the Building and Construction Payments Act 2004 (Qld) – where the respondent did not file a payment schedule within 10 days of receiving the payment claim – where applicant claimed in those circumstances the respondent became liable to pay the amount claimed –whether payment claim served on the correct date – whether the claim served was a final payment claim
-
4th November 2009Southern Electric v Mead Realisations [2009] EWHC 2947 (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 the winning party to an adjudication was entitled to recover costs incurred in chasing the losing party for payment, when the losing party had failed to pay the sums due within the time period ordered by the adjudicator. No agreement had been reached that did not require the payment of such costs and the Court had a broad discretion to make a costs award in these circumstances. Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Akenhead Background Southern Electric Contracting Ltd (“Southern Electric”) provided mechanical and electrical installation work for Mead Realisations Ltd (“Mead”) pursuant to a written construction contract. Disputes arose in relation to the contract...
-
30th October 2009ROK Building v Celtic Composting Systems [2009] EWHC 2664This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary Valid adjudicators’ decisions are to be enforced without set-off or cross claim. The Court must interpret adjudicators’ decisions not only from the words used by the adjudicator but also in the context of the dispute which was referred to adjudication. On the facts of this case, the adjudicator had failed to state when payment of the sums he had found due to the claimant should be made. On a proper interpretation of the decision, however, the adjudicator was clearly calling for an actual payment by the defendant to the claimant, not simply requiring that the amount included in his decision should be the subject of later adjustment in certificates. Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Akenhead Background Celtic...
-
29th October 2009SG South Limited v Kings Head Cirencester LLP & Corn Hall Arcade [2009] EWHC 2645This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary (1) There is a distinction between an adjudication taking place where an allegation of fraud is raised (or could be raised), and where 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 case it generally will not. (2) A stay of execution on grounds of the alleged impecuniousity of the recovering party will not be made where the financial position of the recovering party was the same or very similar to its financial position at the time the relevant contract was made or where the financial difficulties faced were due in significant part to the paying party’s failure...
-
27th October 2009Martinek Holdings Pty Ltd v. Reed Construction (Qld) Pty Ltd [2009] QCA 329Contracts – Building, Engineering and related Contracts – Remuneration – Statutory Regulation of Entitlement to and recovery of progress payments – where adjudication decision made in favour of the respondent under Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) ("the Act"), obliging the appellant to pay the respondent $919,634.91 with respect to its claimed progress payment – where adjudication decision converted into adjudication certificate and judgment of the Supreme Court under the Act – where superintendent under the contract between the parties issued its final certificate, obliging the appellant to pay the respondent $72,027.27 with respect to its claimed progress payment – where the respondent served notice of dispute under contract with respect to superintendent's final certificate – whether the adjudication certificate...
-
22nd October 2009Ericsson AB v EADS Defence and Security Systems Limited [2009] EWHC 2598