- 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-
20th February 2009Ainsworth v R J Neller Building Pty Ltd & Anor [2009] QDC 26Stay of Execution – Whether appropriate case – Where previous applications refused – whether changed circumstances justify stay Costs – Indemnity - Whether appropriate case - Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) - Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 800 - R J Neller Building P/L v Ainsworth [2008] QCA 397
-
20th February 2009Kittu Randhawa v Monica Benavides Serrato [2009] NSWSC 170Building and Construction – adjudication under Building & Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) - validity of adjudication – claim that adjudicator’s determination invalid because receipt of notice of adjudicator’s acceptance alleged not to have been received – establish that notice was posted and accepted that notice did not come to the attention of the plaintiff – distinction between non-delivery and not coming to the attention of the recipient – defendant has benefit of presumption of delivery which plaintiff did not rebut by showing non-receipt by recipient, as opposed to non-delivery – adjudication valid
-
18th February 2009Integral Energy Australia v Kinsley & Associates Pty Ltd [2209] NSWSC 64Building & Construction - Building & Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) challenge to validity of adjudication determination on the basis that adjudicator failed to include the reasons for his determination under s 22(3)(b) of the Act - held that reasons given were sufficient
-
11th February 2009James v Ash Electrical Services Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 30Corporations - winding up - alleged insolvency - application for dismissal of winding up application on grounds of want of prosecution or abuse of process - whether plaintiff dilatory so as to justify termination of proceedings - whether shown that plaintiff's purpose is otherwise than to prosecute application to conclusion
-
6th February 2009O'Donnell Griffin Pty Ltd v John Holland Pty Ltd [2009] WASC 19Administrative law - Prerogative writs - Writ of certiorari - Whether adjudication under the Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA) sufficiently affects rights to be amenable to certiorari - Whether legislation reveals an intention to exclude prerogative relief - Construction of privative clause Building and construction - Payment dispute - Security of payment legislation - Determination by an adjudicator under Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA) - Application for writ of certiorari to quash determination - Whether adjudication application made out of time - Whether adjudicator was obliged to dismiss the application without determining the merits - Whether jurisdictional error by the adjudicator
-
4th February 2009Mead General Building v Dartmoor Properties [2009] EWHC 200This 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 (a) where an adjudicator had not been appointed in accordance with the provisions of the adjudication clause in the contract, he lacked jurisdiction and his award was unenforceable; (b) where the Scheme for Construction Contracts applied, there could be two adjudications on the same issue at the same time provided that no decision had been reached in either adjudication. Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Akenhead BACKGROUND Dartmoor engaged Mead to carry out a £1.6m development in Devon. Mead commenced an adjudication in which it was awarded about £350,000, and sought summary judgment under CPR Part 24 to enforce the Adjudicator’s decision. Dartmoor raised neither...
-
4th February 2009F.W.Cook Ltd v Shimizu (UK) Ltd [2000] HT 99-289This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes If a referral notice does not seek payment of a particular sum of money, then the adjudicator's findings should be implemented by considering the decision in the context of the contract and pre-existing payment notices to ascertain the amount due. HHJ Humphrey LLoyd QC, Technology & Construction Court 4 February 2000 The dispute arose out of a contract for mechanical works. C served a notice of referral to adjudication and sought the "reinstatement" of one claim against S and the "removal" of three items that S had charged to its account. The notice did not expressly seek payment of any sum. The adjudicator gave a ruling on the four issues, but did not identify any money as payable. The parties could not agree how the adjudicator's findings...
-
4th February 2009Diddy Boy v Design [2009] NSWC 14Corporations Law. Application to set aside statutory demand under s 459G of Corporations Act. Genuine dispute and off-setting claim alleged. No sufficient evidence to establish an off-setting claim. Genuine dispute as to denial of natural justice in adjudication under Building & Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 fails as plaintiff had lost proceedings to set aside the adjudication.
-
31st January 2009YCMS Ltd (t/a Young Construction Management Services) v Grabiner & Anor [2009] EWHC 127 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-lawnow.com/adjudication SUMMARY In this case the Court held that a revision that an Adjudicator had purported to make to his award under the “slip rule” was invalid as the Adjudicator had not merely corrected a “patent error” but had in fact had second thoughts as to the basis for calculating the award. The Court also decided that the defendants should not be permitted to set-off against the award the amount of a subsequent award in their favour that had not yet fallen due for payment. Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Akenhead BACKGROUND The Grabiners employed YCMS to carry out extensive works to their London home. Interim Certificates were issued regularly by the Architect. In June 2007, the Architect signed and issued 2...
-
30th January 2009Thermal Energy Construction v AE&E Lentjes UK [2009] EWHC 408This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary Although adjudicators’ decisions are only temporarily binding, it is important that, where reasons are required and given, they enable the parties to understand what has been decided and why. His Honour Judge Stephen Davies, Queen’s Bench Division, Manchester District Registry BACKGROUND Thermal was engaged by AE&E under a sub-contract to provide mechanical erection services in the context of desulphurisation works at a power station. A dispute arose over AE&E’s valuation and certification of Thermal’s claims for payment under the sub-contract, which Thermal referred to adjudication under the TeCSA Rules, requesting that the Adjudicator provide reasons for his decision. The TeCSA Rules required...