- Home
- Nomination
- UK Cases
- Overseas Cases
- Panel
- Guidance
- Glossary
- Legislation
- England & Wales
- Wales
- Scotland
- Northern Ireland
- Australia (Australian Capital Territory)
- Australia (New South Wales)
- Australia (Northern Territory)
- Australia (Queensland)
- Australia (Southern Territory)
- Australia (Tasmania)
- Australia (Victoria)
- Australia (Western Australia)
- Eire
- Isle of Man
- Malaysia
- New Zealand
- Singapore
- Links
- Contact Us
Case Study Archive
Below you can see our full case archive.
There are a total of 1503 cases in our archive-
31st January 2003Dumarc Building Services Ltd v Mr Salvador Rico [2003] KT203081Epsom C.CThis summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes An important purpose of statutory adjudications is to provide contractors with a fast-track method of obtaining funds to which they are apparently entitled, at least on a provisional basis. That purpose would be frustrated if owners could easily set-off moneys from amounts determined by an adjudicator to be owing. HHJ Hull QC, Epsom County Court 31 January 2003 This summary has not been prepared using the judgment, which is not yet available. An owner and a contractor entered into a contract using the JCT Minor Works form. The contract was for work at a residential home. Although residential building work is not subject to the operation of the HGCRA, the parties had agreed to amend the standard form so that disputes could be adjudicated as...
-
28th January 2003Try Construction Ltd v Eton Town House Group Ltd [2003] EWHC 60 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes E argued that there had been a breach of natural justice because the adjudicator had used his own methodology without bringing significant issues to E's attention. However, the Judge held that an adjudicator is not limited to the material presented by the parties. He may take further information and apply his own knowledge and experience, having an absolute discretion to do what he considers necessary. The parties had also agreed to the adjudicator's appointment of a programming expert HHJ David Wilcox, Technology and Construction Court 28 January 2003 E engaged T under a JCT 98 contract to do conversion work. Delays occurred and T submitted several claims. Two claims for extension of time were rejected and referred to adjudication. The adjudicator's...
-
24th January 2003Costain Ltd v Wescol Steel Ltd [2003] EWHC 312 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes There are 'different meanings or nuances of meaning' of 'dispute', as set out in Halki. On the facts of this case, a dispute had arisen as the claim had been made but not paid. HHJ Havery QC, Technology and Construction Court 24 January 2003 CL engaged WSL as a steelwork sub-contractor. The works were purportedly completed in July 2002. WSL entered administrative receivership in September 2002. On 24 September 2002 WSL said that its agents (C&B) would contact CL shortly to discuss the sub-contract. On 18 October 2002, without C&B apparently having contacted CL, WSL threatened to commence an adjudication in respect of its final account and extension of time entitlement, if CL did not pay WSL the requested sum by 11 November 2002. On...
-
22nd January 2003Ferson Contractors Ltd v Levolux A.T. Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 11This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes A provision in a construction contract governed by the HGCR Act 1996, however clearly worded, that entitles a party to withhold against and/or not to pay an Adjudicator's decision because, say, the contract has been terminated, is inconsistent with the HGCR Act 1996 and therefore invalid. Court of Appeal 22 January 2003 The facts and decision at first instance are set out on page 114. The Defendant ('FC') appealed unsuccessfully from that decision. The Court of Appeal approved Judge Wilcox's finding that it was implicit in the Adjudicator's decision that the Claimant ('LAT') was entitled to suspend the works and the purported determination, based on LAT's wrongful suspension of the works, was invalid. FC relied upon a passage in the judgment of...
-
15th January 2003Joinery Plus Ltd (in administration) v Laing Ltd [2003] HT 02/323This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes A decision made by applying the wrong contractual terms may be made without jurisdiction. This is different from applying the wrong construction to contractual terms. If a party wishes to challenge the validity of a decision, it should not ask the adjudicator to correct it. HHJ Thornton QC, Technology and Construction Court 15 January 2003 J was engaged as sub-contractor to L for two different projects. One project was under JCT Works contract standard terms ("Admiralty") and the other was under a heavily amended DOM/2 contract ("Metropole"). Adjudication under Admiralty was in accordance with the JCT rules; Metropole contained no adjudication provisions so the Scheme for Construction Contract applied. Both projects were contentious and J referred...
-
10th January 2003Hart Builders (Edinburg) Ltd v St. Andrews Ltd [2003] ScotSC 14 A69/02This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes The Court dismissed a claim in respect of an interim payment. The claim was on the basis that no withholding notice had been served. If there was a dispute about whether or not sums were due, in reliance on SL Timber, no withholding notice was required. Sheriff Principal Iain Macphaill QC, Appeal 10 January 2003 This was an appeal from an interlocutory judgment given by Sheriff Poole in August 2002. Hart Builders had been engaged by St Andrew to undertake works at a new development, the Caledonian Village, near Haymarket Station in Edinburgh. A dispute arose when St Andrews failed to pay Hart pursuant to an interim certificate. No withholding notice had been served. Hart issued proceedings for payment on the basis that no valid withholding...
-
19th December 2002Picardi (Gennario Maurizio) (t/a Picardi Architects) v Cuniberti [2002] EWHC 2923 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes In contracts with a residential occupier (to which HGCRA 1996 does not apply) adjudication provisions may be unenforceable if they are not fairly and properly brought to the client's attention and individually negotiated. His Honour Judge Toulmin CMG QC, Technology and Construction Court 19 December 2002 The Defendants ('the Cunibertis') engaged the Claimant Architect ('Mr Picardi') in connection with the refurbishment of their private dwelling house. The works cost in excess of £2m. A dispute concerning Mr Picardi's fees was referred to adjudication. The adjudicator decided that the Cunibertis should pay outstanding fees of £42,862, his fees of £5,760 plus VAT and interest. It was agreed that there could be no statutory right...
-
17th December 2002A v B [2002] CA 110/02This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-lawnow.com/adjudication A decision of an Adjudicator is binding until superseded by litigation or arbitration. The defending party could not rely on rights of set off in the enforcement proceedings (for liquidated damages) as it had not raised these during the adjudication Lord Drummond Young, Outer House Court of Session 17 December 2002 The Defendant B were main contractors undertaking a design and build project. A were sub-contractors engaged to carry out the design and installation of roofing and wall cladding. A and B had concluded a sub-contract based on the SBCC Scottish Building Contract With Contractor's Design (September 1995 revision) as amended by a standard form of sub-contract provided by B. During the course of the sub-contract disputes arose and were referred by A to Adjudication...
-
17th December 2002Ballast Plc v Burrell Ltd [2002] : P336/01This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes An adjudicator should consider the claims put forward in the notice of referral and decide whether they are validly asserted under the contract. If he declines to address this, he will not exercise his jurisdiction to determine the dispute. Lord President, Lord Johnston, Lord Weir, Extra Division, Inner House, Court of Session (Scotland) 17 December 2002 This was an appeal from the first instance decision reported at page 72 of Adjudication Watch. At first instance, the Court had decided that the adjudicator's decision, under the Scottish Scheme for Construction Contracts, was a nullity since the adjudicator had not addressed the question put to him. The adjudicator had considered that he could only consider the terms of the contract entered into...
-
6th December 2002Baldwins Industrial Service plc v Barr Ltd [2002] EWHC 2915 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes This was a contract for the supply of plant and labour. That the crane came with a driver was not incidental. B had hired the crane plus operator to undertake construction work. The contract was a construction contract within the HGCRA and the adjudicator had jurisdiction. As the party claiming was in receivership, a stay of execution of the judgment was granted, upon conditions of payment into court and prompt commencement of proceedings. HHJ Frances Kirkham, Technology and Construction Court (Birmingham) 6 December 2002 A (the claimant) hired a crane, together with a driver, to B (the defendant). The crane was damaged and A sought damages from B. The matter was referred to adjudication. The adjudicator rejected B's argument that he lacked jurisdiction...