- 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-
12th December 2000ABB Zantingh v Zedal [2001] BLR 66This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes When considering whether works fall within the exemption in section 105(2) of HGCRA, the Court should consider the nature of the whole site, and ask what is its primary purpose. Here, works involved in the installation of power generators at a printing works did not fall within the exception and were construction operations. HHJ Bowsher QC, Technology & Construction Court 12 December 2000 Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE) agreed to construct diesel powered electricity generation stations for Mirror Group Publishing who were concerned about loss of power due to the "Millennium bug." SSE sub-contracted the design, build and maintenance of the power generation sites to ABB, who sub-sub-contracted with Z for supply, installation, labelling, termination...
-
24th November 2000Harwood v Lantrode [2000] TCCThis summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes An adjudicator's decision will be enforced even if the losing party has commenced proceedings for final determination of the dispute. Section 111 notices to withhold payment apply to equitable set-offs. A stay of execution was granted as a petition for liquidation had been presented. HHJ Seymour QC, Technology and Construction Court 24 November 2000 The nature of the dispute that was referred to adjudication is unreported, however on 13 October 2000 the Adjudicator issued his decision in favour of Harwood to the tune of £208,309.17. Lantrode refused pay and so Harwood brought this application to enforce the Adjudicator's decision. Lantrode resisted payment on the grounds that: to enforce payment would be an abuse of court process as Lantrode...
-
9th November 2000Canary Riverside Development v Timtec International [2000] R.Ct of Justice 69/2000This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Where a party seeks leave to bring adjudication proceedings but litigation has already been commenced against that party then leave may be refused where the subject matter of an adjudication is capable of being resolved by way of a defence and counterclaim to the litigation. Each case will depend on its own facts. Deputy Judge: Mr DKR Oliver QC, Royal Courts of Justice 9 November 2000 CRD engaged TI under a trade contract to carry out works on a riverside development. The procurement was by way of construction management. TI made 2 applications for payment under the Trade Contract for a sum totalling £285,300.44. CRD prepared and signed a cheque for that amount. CRD subsequently discovered that TI had gone into administration 2 days...
-
16th October 2000Maymac Environmental Services v Faraday [2001] 75 Con LRHT 00/222This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Any points to be made about whether the adjudicator has jurisdiction to act should be made during the adjudication itself, otherwise the parties are likely to be found to have consented to the adjudication process and will be estopped from arguing the adjudicator had no jurisdiction in any enforcement proceedings. HHJ Toulmin QC, Technology and Construction Court 16 October 2000 M was a mechanical and electrical sub-contractor to F and applied for payment for works done. M only received part of the payment and so referred the payment dispute to adjudication under HGCRA 1996 and the Scheme. The adjudicator awarded the sum claimed by M plus interest. F refused to pay. M applied for summary judgement to enforce the adjudicator's decision in its favour. F...
-
2nd October 2000Woods Hardwick Ltd v Chiltern Air Conditioning Ltd HT 00/28This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes If there are significant departures from the Scheme's rules, the Court will not enforce the adjudicator's decision. Adjudicators should take care if they provide evidence for use in enforcement proceedings. A proper abatement is outside Section 111 and a notice to withhold is not required. HHJ Thornton QC, Technology and Construction Court 2 October 2000 W applied to enforce 2 adjudicator's decisions (from 2 different contracts) against C. For the first decision, C argued that the judgment should be stayed pending the trial of its action against W arising from another unrelated contract. The Court held that this was no reason to hold up payment of the adjudicator's award, and awarded judgment. C challenged the decision in the second adjudication...
-
7th September 2000Cygnet Healthcare plc v Higgins City Ltd [2000] EWHC 00/285 (TCC)
-
30th August 2000Elanay Contracts Ltd v The Vestry [2000] HT 00264This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Adjudication is not subject to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights because it does not involve a final determination of civil rights. HHJ Richard Havery QC, Technology and Construction Court 30 August 2000 E applied to enforce an adjudicator's award by summary judgment. However, it served a fully pleaded Particulars of Claim, including reference to terms of the contract. V served a Defence and Counterclaim. V also opposed the application for summary judgment. V's first argument was that if summary judgment was awarded, it would be estopped from relying upon issues raised in the Defence and Counterclaim in future proceedings. The Judge held that this was incorrect, on the basis that if there was to be an issue estoppel, the particular...
-
24th August 2000Universal Music Operations Ltd v Flairnote Ltd [2000] HTT-00-224This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes In a project management contract, the project manager is merely acting as agent for the employer, so any contract made between the project manager and a contractor is deemed to be a construction contract within Part II of the HGCRA 1996 between the employer and the contractor. Wilcox J, Technology and Construction Court 24 August 2000 U owned a number of properties in London, and had used S as project managers when undertaking work on the properties. They used a contract described as an agreement for project management and management contracting services which provided for S to arrange execution of the contract by the contractor. A project was planned to refurbish a building in Chelsea. A draft agreement was discussed between U and S based on the...
-
9th August 2000Discain Project Services Ltd v Opecprime Developments Ltd No1 [2000] BLR 402 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes An adjudicator can decide that a dispute has arisen, even if the due date for payment has not arrived. The Court may not enforce the adjudicator's award if the manner in which it has been reached breaches the rules of natural justice. HHJ Bowsher QC, Technology & Construction Court 9 August 2000 A dispute arose between the parties, and an adjudicator was appointed. The Scheme for Construction Contracts applied in the absence of any adjudication provisions in the contract. The adjudicator awarded sums to D, but O did not pay. D therefore applied for summary judgment of the sum awarded. O challenged the jurisdiction of the adjudicator, and raised arguments relating to natural justice. Firstly, O said the notice of adjudication was premature,...
-
9th August 2000Whiteways Contractors (Sussex) Ltd v Impresa Castelli Construction Ltd [2000] EWHC Technology 67This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Although the adjudicator under certain contracts has no power to determine his jurisdiction, the parties may decide between themselves to extend his jurisdiction. In applying sections 110 and 111 of the HGCRA, there is no distinction to be made between set-off and abatement. HHJ Bowsher QC, Technology and Construction Court 9 August 2000 W was a plastering sub-contractor who was engaged by I in connection with a construction in London. The contract incorporated the terms of the standard form of contract for sub-contractors DOM/1. Article 3 and Clause 38 of those terms provide for disputes or differences between the parties to be referred to adjudication. W gave its notice to adjudicate by letter dated 13 January 2000. The adjudicator gave his decision...