Case Study Archive

Below you can see our full case archive.

There are a total of 1503 cases in our archive
previous12...78798081828384...150151next
  • 12th February 2008
    Adelaide Bank Limited v BMG Poseidon Corp Pty Limited [2008] NSWSC 68
    CATCHWORDS : COMMON LAW - default judgment - application to set aside - whether arguable defence to judgment debt – promissory representation - reliance LEGISLATION CITED : Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 Real Property Act 1900 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules
    Click here to read more
  • 11th February 2008
    T R Welsh & Anor v Gunac South Auckland Ltd HC AK CIV 2006-404-7877 [2008] NZHC 99
    Click here to read more
  • 11th February 2008
    Sheree Ann Taylor v W & D Mellis Builders Ltd HC NAP CIV 2007-441-411 [2008] NZHC 97
    Click here to read more
  • 6th February 2008
    Multiplex Construction Ltd v Cleveland Bridge Ltd No1 [2008] EWCA Civ 133
    Click here to read more
  • 30th January 2008
    Majeed v Mahmud [2008] NSWSC 309
    PROCEDURE – judgments and orders – setting aside – where judgment given in absence of party. LEGISLATION CITED: (NSW) Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 - (NSW) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 36.15(1)
    Click here to read more
  • 19th January 2008
    Dorchester Hotel Ltd v Vivid Interiors Ltd [2009] EWHC 70
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-lawnow.com/adjudication SUMMARY The TCC has jurisdiction to intervene in ongoing adjudications to prevent breaches of natural justice, but should use this jurisdiction extremely sparingly and only in clear-cut cases.  The mere use of “ambush” tactics will not justify such intervention. Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Coulson BACKGROUND The Dorchester engaged Vivid to refurbish its hotel.  In March 2008, 6 months after completion, Vivid produced a draft final account in the approximate gross sum of £4.39m, with further documentation to follow.  Documents were provided piecemeal between May and October, changing the sum.  The sum had changed again on 12 December, when Vivid commenced adjudication proceedings in respect of the final account. ...
    Click here to read more
  • 17th January 2008
    Xycrete P/L v David Taylor Building Services P/L [2008] NSWCTTT 779
    Whether the work for which payment is sought was additional work or rectification work?  Whether there was a subsequent agreement made for accord and satisfaction of the Applicant’s claim? Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the matter as the matter?   Home Building Act 1989 - Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999
    Click here to read more
  • 16th January 2008
    Marshall, B v Stimson, S t/a SAS Roofing [2008] CCBT 241-06
    Building dispute – defective roofing works – non-payment of contract price – effect of adjudicator’s decision pursuant to the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004
    Click here to read more
  • 18th December 2007
    Amber Construction Services Ltd v London Interspace HG Ltd [2007] EWHC 3042 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Where a party loses an adjudication and has no basis for resisting enforcement of that decision, it may be penalised on costs if that party fails to adhere to the decision and intimates that it intends to challenge the adjudicator’s decision or enforcement proceedings. Mr. Justice Akenhead – Technology and Construction Court Background Amber obtained an adjudicator’s decision against London Interspace. London Interspace did not pay the sum that the adjudicator decided it owed to Amber. Amber’s lawyers wrote to London Interspace stating that if the sum was not paid without delay Amber would commence enforcement proceedings. London Interspace’s lawyers wrote back saying that they had a valid jurisdictional defence to...
    Click here to read more
  • 13th December 2007
    Bucklands Convalescent Hospital v Taylor Projects Group [2007] NSWSC 1514
    BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION – Question whether delivery or not of a payment schedule is for court or adjudicator to determine – Delivery challenged on basis that Superintendent under contract who delivered it had no authority to do so – Whether Superintendent can be so authorised – Question whether it was is a matter for adjudicatorLEGISLATION CITED: Building and Construction Industry Security of Payments Act 1999 (NSW)
    Click here to read more
previous12...78798081828384...150151next