- 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-
25th September 2009Grocon Constructors v Planit Cocciardi Joint Venture (No. 2) [2009] VSC 426Building Contracts - Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic) – Circumstances in which decisions of an adjudicator and review adjudicator are subject to judicial review - Brodyn Pty Ltd v Davenport [2004] NSWCA 394 considered and not followed in part.
-
24th September 2009Robson Civil Projects Pty Limited v Walter Mining Pty Limited [2009] NSWSC 1071Building and Construction Law - Adjudication determination made pursuant to s 22 of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) (“the Act”) - Whether the adjudicator failed to make a bona fide attempt to exercise his powers under the Act – Whether the plaintiff was denied a measure of natural justice as required under the Act – Held that there was no failure by the adjudicator to make a bona fide attempt to perform his task under the Act, nor any substantial denial of natural justice - The adjudicator considered the operation of the appropriate clauses of the contract in question, the operation of the Act, and he afforded each party the opportunity to make submissions.
-
21st September 2009Foggo and ors v RJ Merrifield Limited CIV-2009-409-000605
-
21st September 2009Project v TQM [2009] NSWSC 699Corporations Law. Application to set aside statutory demand under s 459G of Corporations Act. Whether a genuine dispute can exist or an off-setting claim can be found notwithstanding a judgment for progress payments under the Building & Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999. Held it can.
-
10th September 2009Park Avenue Pty Ltd v Sullivan [2009] QDC 292Building Contracts – where identical purported payment claims served – where date on second purported payment claim different from first – where both purported payment claims for same reference date – where respondent did not respond to either purported payment claim – application for judgment
-
10th September 2009Cardiacos v Cooper Consulting & Construction Services (Aust) Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 938Contracts - building, engineering and related contracts – plaintiff contends adjudication determination is void under s 7(2)(b) of Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 because contract was for the carrying out of residential building work – meaning of ‘resides in or proposes to reside in’ – consideration of plaintiff’s intention – plaintiff resided at the premises at all relevant times – purported adjudication determination is void.
-
4th September 2009Reed Construction (Q) Pty Ltd v Dellsun Pty Ltd [2009] QSC 263Corporations Law – Statutory Demand – Setting Aside – Where respondent entered contract with applicant for construction work – Where dispute over amount to be paid for work – Where respondent served applicant with various versions of a claim for payment, each for different amount – Where applicant asserted an offsetting claim for rectification of faulty workmanship by respondent – Where respondent served payment claim under BCIPA – Where applicant responded with payment schedule – Where dispute referred to adjudicator under BCIPA – Where decision issued in favour of respondent – Where respondent issued statutory demand for adjudication amount - Where inconsistencies among statements of the respondent – Where applicant seeks set aside of statutory demand – Whether there is a genuine dispute concerning the alleged...
-
4th September 2009Northside Projects Pty Ltd v Trad & Anor [2009] QSC 264Building & Engineering Contracts – Adjudication – Where the first respondent issued two identical payment claims with the same reference date – Where the applicant issued payment schedules in respect of both payment claims – Where the second identical claim was referred to an adjudicator - Where the applicant challenged the validity of the payment claim – Where the adjudicator held the payment claim was valid – Whether the second identical payment claim was valid for the purposes of the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) — Authorities and principles discussed – Whether the adjudicator erred in interpreting cases – Whether adjudicator had jurisdiction to determine dispute.
-
3rd September 2009Vadaxz v Bloomer Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd [2009] QSC 261Contract — Building & Construction — where plaintiff has recovered adjudication determination and judgment against defendant — where plaintiff is indebted to subcontractors and does not fully reveal his financial circumstances — where defendant asserts cross-claim for damages and defective works — defendant seeks stay and retention of money paid into Court by it — whether refusal of stay will cause irreparable prejudice.
-
3rd September 2009Mr S Hart t/a DW Hart & Son v Mr Dennis Smith & Mrs Jacqui Smith [2009] EWHC 2223This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary In the circumstances of this case the Court did not allow the defendant employer to deduct LDs from a sum that it had been ordered to pay over to the claimant contractor. The defendant had failed to show that its entitlement to LDs followed logically from the decision of the adjudicator. Technology and Construction Court, HHJ Toulmin CMG Background The defendant employers (“ the Smiths”) employed the claimant contractor (“Mr Hart”) to convert a number of barns into dwelling houses pursuant to a JCT Standard Form of Building Contract with Quantities 2005 edition (“the contract”). The parties fell into dispute over payment and Mr Hart referred the matter to adjudication. The Smiths...