Case Study Archive

Below you can see our full case archive.

There are a total of 1503 cases in our archive
  • 20th June 2006
    City Inn Ltd v Shepherd Construction Ltd [2006] CSOH 94
  • 19th June 2006
    Diploma Construction Pty Ltd v Esslemont Nominees Pty Ltd [2006] WASAT 350
    Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA) - Whether decision permitting adjudication to proceed reviewable Legislation: Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA), s 26, s 26(1), s 31(2), s 31(2)(a), s 31(2)(a)(i), s 31(2)(a)(ii), s 31(2)(a)(iii), s 31(2)(a)(iv), s 31(2)(b), s 31(3), s 31(4), s 32(3)(a), s 46, s 46(1), s 46(3)
  • 19th June 2006
    CBQ v Welsh & Ian Hammett Electrical Pty Ltd [2006] QSC 235
    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – STATUTORY REVIEW – Where applicant sourt a review of adjudication of the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) – where contract concluded before 1st October 2004 – where written contract after 1st October 2004. - Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) - The King v Blakeley: Ex Parte Association of Architects etc of Australia [1950] HCA 40; (1950) 82 CLR 54 cited - Trollope & Colls Ltd & Anor v Nuclear Civil Constructors & Anor (1973) 1 WLR 601 cited -
  • 16th June 2006
    Hands v Morrison Construction Services Ltd [2006] EWHC 2018
  • 16th June 2006
    Brodyn P/L v Y A Welding P/L [2006] NSWLC 25
    CATCHWORDS:                Notice of Motion - Is the plaintiff a person who is entitled to make a claim for payment against the defendant under the Act Construction of the Act - Whether the plaintiff is a person who has "undertaken" to do "construction work" - Progress payments LEGISLATION CITED:        Uniform Civil Procedure Rules R.13.1, 14.28 and 16.3 Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 Ss. 3(1), 4, 7, 8(1), 13, 14(4), 15(2)(a) and 34
  • 13th June 2006
    Midland Expressway Ltd v Carillion Construction Ltd [2006] EWHC 1505 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit Adjudication is only available once a dispute has arisen between the parties.  A dispute can only be said to have crystallised if a claim is denied/not admitted by the other side.  Further if a claim is presented in such a nebulous and ill-defined manner that the defendant cannot sensibly respond to it, neither silence nor express non-admission could give rise to a dispute for the purposes of adjudication or arbitration.It was also commented obiter that there was nothing in the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 that prevented a party from discontinuing a claim or a head of claim in an adjudication.Mr Justice Jackson – Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction CourtBackgroundThe Secretary of State appointed...
  • 13th June 2006
    Procorp Civil P/L v Napoli Excavations & Contracting P/L (No.2) [2006] NSWCA 147
    PRACTICE - APPEAL - Security for costs - Whether corporation challenging adjudication determination under Building & Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 is in substance a plaintiff - Whether special circumstances need to be shown - Whether special circumstances shown.
  • 8th June 2006
    Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v West India Quay Development Co (Eastern) Ltd [2006] EWHC 1569 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit Errors of fact or law made by the adjudicator will not render his decision invalid.  The only challenge made to his decision must be on the grounds of breach of natural justice or excess of jurisdiction.  Applying methods of analysis different to those adopted by the parties, failing to consider certain facts or to provide reasons for the decision do not, in the context of an adjudication, amount to a breach of natural justice nor excess of jurisdiction.Mr Justice Ramsey – Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction CourtBackground Multiplex successfully obtained several extensions of time in an adjudication, which reduced Multiplex’s overall liability for liquidated damages under the construction contract and resulted...
  • 7th June 2006
    Hillview Industrial Developments (UK) Ltd v Botes Building Ltd [2006] EWHC 1365 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit This case constitutes a reminder that there are only very limited grounds upon which a defendant may successfully persuade a court to refuse to order summary enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision.  A defendant is not entitled to withhold payment ordered in an adjudication on the grounds of his anticipated recovery in a future adjudication/court proceedings based on different issues.  Judge Toulmin CMG QC – Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court This was an application by Hillview for summary judgment to enforce an adjudication decision against Botes.  Botes accepted that the adjudicator’s decision was valid, but invited the court to hold that there were compelling circumstances why this case...
  • 7th June 2006
    Baulderstone Hornibrook P/L v Queensland Investment Corp [2006] NSWSC 522
    Building and Construction Payment Schedule Whether payment schedule was provided by respondent to claimant Question of fact Contractual requirement that Principals representative be appointed Obligation of Principals representative when exercising functions prescribed by Contract capable of being termed 'fiduciary duties' Challenge to activities [of indirect assistant of Principals representative] in physically assembling folders of documents served as part of payment schedule Activities challenged held to fall outside functions prescribed by the Contract to be carried out by Principals representative