Case Study Archive

Below you can see our full case archive.

There are a total of 1503 cases in our archive
  • 8th June 2007
    Development Dynamics (Queensland) Pty Ltd v Davies Projects Pty Ltd [2007] QDC 145
  • 8th June 2007
    QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd v Quasar Constructions (NSW) P/L [2007] NSWDC 162
    Building and Construction - report of Refereee - errors alleged in report, some conceded, others disputed - disputed findings open to Referee on the evidence - not demonstrated that Referee misapprehended the evidence, or made perverse findings – reasons of Referee adequate - Practice & Procedure - Court appointed Referee - procedure on delivery of report to Court – whether Referee's report should be adopted, rejected or varied LEGISLATION CITED:                            UCPR: r 20.14, r 20.23, r 20.24(1)(a)
  • 7th June 2007
    Wolbers v Day & Co Pty Ltd [2007] QDC 103
    PRACTICE – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – STRIKING OUT COUNTER-CLAIM – CLAIMS UNDER Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 – defendant denying Act applies, and serving counterclaim – whether denial that Act applies negates its effect – whether counterclaim should be struck out - Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004, Part 3 Division 1  - Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, r 171
  • 31st May 2007
    A.R.T. Consultancy Ltd v Navera Trading Ltd [2007] EWHC 1375
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit Where only one of two distinct elements of works is detailed in a written contract, an adjudicator will only have jurisdiction to address issues relating to the element of work that is detailed in the written contract. Technology and Construction Court, Judge Peter Coulson QC Background Navera Trading Limited (“Navera”) appointed A.R.T. Consulting Limited (“ART”) to carry out design and construction work in respect of a site on Kilburn High Road, London.  ART made claims for payments which were not met and commenced adjudication.  The adjudicator decided that the design works were carried by ART under a separate agreement the terms of which were not all in writing and that therefore he had no jurisdiction to deal...
  • 31st May 2007
    AC Yule & Son Ltd v Speedwell Roofing & Cladding Ltd [2007] EWHC 1360
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit If an adjudicator receives new information shortly before his deadline for reaching a decision, which makes it necessary for him to seek a short extension of time from the parties, the parties are under an obligation to reply plainly and promptly to that request.  Failure to reply may be taken to mean consent to the request.  This is particularly so where the party in question continues to participate in the adjudication.HH Judge Coulson QC – Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction CourtBackground Yule commenced adjudication proceedings against Speedwell.  At an early stage, the adjudicator requested and Yule granted a 14-day extension expiring on 3 April 2007.  Shortly before expiry of the extended period,...
  • 30th May 2007
    Kell & Rigby Pty Ltd v Guardian International Properties Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 554
    [BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY SECURITY OF PAYMENT ACT 1999] - consequence of failure to provide a notice under s 17(2) of the Act before filing adjudication application - whether filing adjudication application without providing notice under s 17(2) of the Act amounts to an election under s 15(2)(a)(ii) of the Act - whether the plaintiff is precluded from bringing proceedings.  LEGISLATION CITED: Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW)
  • 30th May 2007
    Silverpoint International Limited & ors v Wedding Earthmovers Limited HC AK CIV 2007-404-104 [2007] NZHC 807
  • 23rd May 2007
    Mott MacDonald Ltd v London & Regional Properties Ltd [2007] EWHC 1055 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit An adjudicator’s decision on a dispute arising from a letter of intent was unenforceable because the letter of intent did not constitute a contract in writing/evidenced in writing for the purposes of s.107(2) of the HGCRA.  The adjudicator’s decision was also procedurally flawed because he withheld delivery of the decision for 6 calendar days pending receipt of his fees.HH Judge Thornton QC – Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction CourtBackground Mott MacDonald (“MM”) was approached by LRP to provide consultancy services in relation to a business park development.  MM was initially instructed under a letter of intent pending final agreement between the parties.  The letter of intent was...
  • 23rd May 2007
    Clarence Street P/L v ISIS Projects P/L No2 [2007] NSWSC 509
    COSTS - of application for further security for costs and other relief - no question of principle
  • 17th May 2007
    Mast Electrical Services v Kendall Cross Holdings Ltd [2007] EWHC 1296 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit Mast Electrical Services (as trading division of John W & S Dorin Limited) v Kendall Cross Holdings Limited [2007] EWHC 1296 (TCC) Judgment Date: 17.05.2007 Where documents fail to set out, record or evidence all the material terms of a contract, they will not amount to a construction contract in writing for the purposes of s.107 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (the “Act”). Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Jackson Background The defendant contractor (“Kendall”) was invited to tender by Your Homes Newcastle Limited (“YHN”) for the refurbishment of local authority homes.  Kendall sent out tender documents for electrical works to prospective sub-contractors. ...