Case Study Archive

Below you can see our full case archive.

There are a total of 1503 cases in our archive

previous 1 2...129 130 131132133 134 135...150 151 next

12th May 2003
Galliford Northern Ltd v Markel UK Ltd [2003] Leeds District Registry QBD

This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes The right to an indemnity for the purpose of the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 1930 will only arise from an adjudicator's award once steps have been taken to enforce that award. Judge Behrens, Queens Bench Division (Leeds District Registry) 12 May 2003 The claims arose out of a construction project in Leeds in which G was the main contractor and MHA Ltd were consulting structural engineers. A dispute arose between the parties and was referred to adjudication. Throughout the adjudication MHA disputed the Adjudicator's jurisdiction on the grounds that no written contract was ever concluded. The Adjudicator decided that he did have jurisdiction and issued his award in favour of G. MHA went into voluntary liquidation. ...

Click here to read more
5th May 2003
Parist Holdings Pty Ltd v WT Partnership Australia Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 365

CONSTRUCTION, SECURITY OF PAYMENT ADJUDICATION, Whether Adjudicator acted ultra vires in adjudication and determination - whether Adjudicator's determination a nullity - whether payment claim is foundation of jurisdiction of Adjudicator - whether serious issues to be tried - whether Defendant entitled to declarations and summary judgmentHELD: Defendant entitled to recover adjudicated amount from Plaintiff as debt due to it and entitled to summary judgment of $71,086.52ACTS CITED: Building Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) ss 4-7, s 13, s, 13(2), s 13(2)(a)-(b), s 14, s 17, s 17(2), s 19(2), s 20, s 20(2), s 21, s 22, s 22(1), s 22(2), s 22(2)(b)-(d), s 23(1)(a)-(b), s 25, s 25(1), s 25(2), s25(1)(a)-(b), s 25(2)(a), s 25(4), s 25(5)(a) - Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) s 94

Click here to read more
30th April 2003
Comsite Projects Ltd v Andritz AG [2003] EWHC 958 (TCC)

This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes A clause conferring a foreign jurisdiction will not prevent a party from commencing an adjudication, so long as the contract in question is a "construction contract". The adjudicator's award will be enforceable by the English courts. HHJ Kirkham, Queens Bench Division (Birmingham TCC) 30 April 2003 C had entered into a building services sub-contract with A to install various services at a new wastewater treatment works and sewage-recycling centre at Sandown, Isle of Wight. Disputes arose between the parties. Clause 20 of the building services sub-contract provided that "All disputes arising in interpretation or execution of the present contract, its annexes or in connection with documents issued by both parties to the contract,...

Click here to read more
11th April 2003
Deko Scotland v Edinburgh Royal Joint Venture & Anor [2003] ScotCS 113

This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes In adjudication there is an implied power to have any award of costs or expenses taxed by the Auditor of Court. Before the award of expenses could be enforced the successful party's account must be agreed or remitted to the Court for taxation. Lord Drummond Young of the Outer House, Court of Session 11 April 2003 The Defendants (the JV) were the participants in a joint venture set up to design and construct the new Edinburgh Royal Infirmary and Medical School. Deko was a sub-contractor. The sub-contract contained provisions for adjudication in terms of the HGCRA 1996 with the procedure governed by the ORSA Adjudication Rules – 1998 Version 1.2, subject to a large number of amendments. The issue here was in relation...

Click here to read more
11th April 2003
Construction Centre Group Ltd v Highland Council [2003] ScotCS 114

This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Contractual termination provisions that suspend payment obligations will be construed so that they are consistent with the purpose of the HGCR Act 1996. Also, a claim that might have been relied upon before an Adjudicator, but was not, cannot subsequently be set off against that Adjudicator's decision. Extra Division, Inner House, Court of Session 11 April 2003 HC engaged CCG to design, construct and maintain works. The Contract incorporated conditions based on the ICE Conditions of Contract, 5th ed., 1973 (Jan. 1979 revision), with amendments. A dispute was referred to adjudication. The Adjudicator awarded CCG £245k, to be paid within 7 days. HC did not pay and CCG sued. At first instance, HC claimed,...

Click here to read more
9th April 2003
Walter Construction Group Ltd v CPL (Surry Hills) P/ L [2003] NSWSC 266

CONSTRUCTION - CONTRACT - SECURITY OF PAYMENT Whether payment claim valid - Whether failure to provide payment schedule attracts liability - Whether entitlement to summary judgment - Whether claim related to construction work - Whether Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) applies - Whether payment claim premature - Whether claimant entitled to progress payment - Whether misleading or deceptiveACTS CITED: Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) s 3(1); s 5(1)(a) - (g); s 5(2)(a) - (c); s 6(1)(a)(i) and (ii); s 6(1)(b)(i) - (iii); s 6(1)(c)(ii); s 7(1), (2), (2)(c); s 8, 8(2)(a)(i); s 9(a); s 13(1), (2)(a)-(c); s14(1)-(3), (4)(a), 4(b)(i)-(ii); s 15(2)(a)-(b), s 15(4) - Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 52

Click here to read more
7th April 2003
Hills Electrical & Mechanical Plc v Dawn Construction Ltd [2003] ScotCS 107

This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-lawnow.com/adjudication Where the parties do not make adequate provision as to payment, the Scheme for Construction Contracts will fill in the gaps. If some points have been agreed, these will not be replaced by the Scheme. The Scheme's payment provisions will not sweep away what the parties have agreed as to payment. Lord Clarke, Outer House, Court of Session 7 April 2003 H entered into a sub-contract with D, the main contractor. D's employer had gone into administration on 10 October 2000. H commenced this action to recover sums due with interest from 5 October 2000. H claimed that the sub-contract failed to provide dates on which H should make applications for payment and also contained a pay when certified provision relating to the main contract. H said...

Click here to read more
1st April 2003
Trustees of Harbour of Peterhead v Lilley Construction [2003] CA 229/02

This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes There was nothing in the terms of the contract to support the argument that, adjudication having taken place, a referral to arbitration was now precluded. Paragraph 23(1) of the Scheme for Construction Contracts recognises that arbitration can follow adjudication. It would be pedantic for the Court to require that a Notice of Dispute, let alone a Notice to Refer, be served before entertaining an application to stay for arbitration. Lord Mackay, Outer House, Court of Session 1 April 2003 L undertook construction works for THP on terms incorporating ICE6. The Scheme for Construction Contracts applied to the contract. L served a notice of adjudication on THP on 13 December 2001, and referred a dispute between the parties...

Click here to read more
20th March 2003
Beck Peppiat Ltd v Norwest Holst Construction Ltd [2003] EWHC 822 (TCC)

This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes The Judge held that the law is as stated in Sindall v Solland: "For there to be a dispute for the purposes of exercising the statutory right to adjudication it must be clear that a point has emerged from the process of discussion or negotiation that has ended and that there is something which needs to be decided". This did not conflict with the approach in Halki, and the word 'dispute' should not be given a specialised meaning for the purpose of adjudication. Mr Justice Forbes, Technology and Construction Court20 March 2003B entered into a sub-contract with N for construction work. N referred three issues to adjudication: (1) whether BP was entitled to a further extension of time, (2) the final evaluation of any loss and expense payable to BP, and...

Click here to read more
20th March 2003
St. Andrews Bay Development Ltd v HBG Management Ltd [2003] ScotCS 103

This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Adjudicators' decisions can be enforced even though given late. Lord Wheatley, Outer House of the Scottish Court of Session 20 March 2003 HBG commenced an adjudication against its employer, St Andrews, under the JCT standard form, with Contractor's Design, Scottish edition. On 5 March 2003 (when the adjudicator's decision was due), HBG telephoned the adjudicator at 5pm to ask about her decision. HBG were told that the adjudicator had reached a decision but did not intend to release it until her fee had been paid (even though an invoice had not yet been sent). The adjudicator then faxed an invoice for her fee to the parties. On 6 March 2003 HBG said they would pay the fee. On 7 March 2003 the adjudicator released her...

Click here to read more

previous 1 2...129 130 131132133 134 135...150 151 next