Case Study Archive

Below you can see our full case archive.

There are a total of 1503 cases in our archive
  • 19th January 2007
    Bennett (Electrical) Services Limited v Inviron Limited [2007] EWHC 49 (QB)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit HH Judge Havery QC – Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court A dispute arose between Bennett, an electrical contractor and its mechanical and electrical contractor, Inviron.  The parties went to adjudication and a decision was made in Bennett’s favour.  Bennett sought to enforce the adjudicator’s decision.  Inviron opposed the enforcement proceedings on the following grounds:(1) There was no contact for the purposes of s107 of HGCRA.  There was only a letter of intent which was ‘subject to contract’; and (2) the adjudicator had no jurisdiction since the issue of jurisdiction had been determined in an earlier adjudication.HHJ Wilcox dealt with the first argument. ...
  • 19th January 2007
    Veolia Water Solutions & Technologies v Kruger Engineering Australia P/L [2007] NSWSC 46
    CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT - statutory regulation of entitlement to and recovery of progress payments - payment claim - valuation of delay costs - payment schedule - incomplete or defective works - whether adjudication determination void - natural justice - whether dispute decided on basis for which parties did not contend - requirement to have regard to certain matters (s 22(2)) - whether adjudicator entitled or required to consider statutory declaration except as submission in support of payment schedule  LEGISLATION CITED: Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999
  • 19th January 2007
    Epping Electrical Company Ltd v Briggs & Forrester (Plumbing Services) Ltd [2007] EWHC 4 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit Where a contractual adjudication procedure is non-compliant with the HGCRA, the entire contractual procedure will be deemed non-compliant and the statutory adjudication scheme will apply instead. The CIC adjudication procedure was held to be non-compliant with the HGCRA and therefore invalid.His Honour Judge Havery QC – Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court Background A dispute arising between the parties was referred to adjudication, conducted in accordance with the Construction Industry Council (“CIC”) procedure current at the time of the appointment.  The 28-day period in which the adjudicator was required to reach a decision expired on 1 November.  The deadline was extended to 14 November...
  • 17th January 2007
    Northside Roofing Pty Ltd v Pires Constructions Pty Ltd [2007] QDC 172
    Commercial and Consumer Tribunal - whether a "court of competent jurisdiction" - whether proceedings pursuant to s.19 (1) (a) of the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 are matters for the Tribunal or for a Court .
  • 10th January 2007
    Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Mott Macdonald Ltd [2007] EWHC 20 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit This case concerned the breadth of the dispute that had arisen between the parties in relation to a right to access ‘all pertinent records’.  It was unsuccessfully contended by Mott that the adjudication notice was drafted too broadly and that the adjudicator did not have the jurisdiction to decide the dispute that had been referred by the claimant to him. Although Multiplex succeeded on the jurisdictional point, the court found that there was no basis on the evidence before it to hold that Mott had not complied with the adjudicator’s decision, therefore it refused to grant summary judgment on Multiplex’s claims for specific performance, an injunction and/or damages.Mr Justice Jackson – Queen’s Bench Division,...
  • 4th January 2007
    Humes Building Contracts v Charlotte Homes (Surrey) [2007]
  • 21st December 2006
    Cubitt Building & Interiors Ltd v Fleetglade Ltd [2006] EWHC 3413 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit This case provides a reminder that where the contractual adjudication framework is compliant with the HGCRA, the contract will govern the adjudication rather than the legislation.  The court interpreted the contractual provisions relating to timetabling in a sensible and commercial way to reach the conclusion that the adjudicator had been validly appointed even though the referral notice was served just outside the seven-day period.  Further, a decision reached within the agreed extended date (just), but only communicated to the parties twelve hours later and after expiry of that period was held to have been communicated ‘forthwith’.  The adjudicator’s decision was upheld.His Honour Judge Coulson QC – Queen’s...
  • 20th December 2006
    G W Enterprises Pty Ltd v Xentex Industries Pty Ltd & Ors [2006] QSC 399
    JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – JURISDICTIONAL MATTERS – whether the adjudicator failed in his duty to afford natural justice and acted without jurisdiction - JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – ERROR OF LAW – whether the adjudicator’s decision is void or voidable due to an error of law
  • 20th December 2006
    Quietfield Ltd v Vascroft Construction Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1737
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit Lord Justices May and Dyson, Lady Justice Smith DBE – Court of AppealSection 108(3) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 and paragraph 23 of the Scheme for Construction Contracts provide for the temporary finality of an adjudicator’s decision.  Paragraph 9(2) of the Scheme obliges an adjudicator to resign where the dispute is the same or substantially the same as one which has previously been referred to adjudication, and a decision has been taken in that adjudication. This case looks at how these provisions aimed at preventing an adjudicator re-hearing the same or substantially the same dispute interrelate with a usual provision in a construction contract allowing a contractor to make successive applications...
  • 20th December 2006
    Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1834