- 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-
1st August 2000ABB Power v Norwest Holst Engineering Ltd [2000] EWHC Technology 68This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Section 105(2) of HGCRA construed quite broadly using a purposive approach to decide if any given contract constitutes an exempted construction operation. In this case, a contract to install insulation to clad pipework etc on a site where the primary activity was power generation was outside the scope of the Act. HHJ Humphrey LLoyd QC, Technology and Construction Court 1 August 2000 ABB placed an order with N to install insulation to clad pipework, drums and various other parts of the equipment at a site where ABB was building three new heat recovery steam generators (HRSGs) as part of a project to extend an existing power station. N was also to pre-fabricate the cladding material. There was a dispute about payment and N gave notice of adjudication...
-
31st July 2000Bouygues UK Ltd v Dahl-Jensen UK Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 507This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Where one party is insolvent and the parties have claims against each other, summary judgment is not appropriate. The operation of rule 4.90 of the Insolvency Rules means that there is a real reason to dispose of the claims at trial. Court of Appeal (Peter Gibson, Chadwick and Buxton LJJ) 31 July 2000 The facts and decision at first instance are set out on page 14. B appealed from the decision of Dyson J on the ground that the adjudicator had decided a matter outside of his terms of reference. The Court dismissed B's appeal. The Court recognised that the purpose of section 108 of HGCRA 1996 was to provide parties with a speedy method of resolving disputes, which although not finally determinative, could be sued upon. Where an adjudicator had answered...
-
27th July 2000Shepherd Construction v Mecright Ltd [2000] BLR 489 : 27.07.2000This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes A settlement agreement may mean that there can be no disputes capable of referral to adjudication. A claim that an agreement was entered into under economic duress is not a dispute arising "under" the sub-contract. In appropriate circumstances, the Court will grant a declaration under Part 8 of the CPR. HHJ Humphrey LLoyd QC, Technology & Construction Court 27 July 2000 S brought a claim under Part 8 of the CPR seeking a declaration that the adjudicator appointed to investigate a dispute had no jurisdiction to do so. The Court approved the use of this procedure for such applications. M was S's sub-contractor on the Walsall bus station. Towards the end of the work, the parties were in dispute over the amounts of money due to M. On 15 March 2000,...
-
24th July 2000George Parke v The Fenton Gretton Partnership [2001] CILL 1712This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-lawnow.com/adjudication F entered into an agreement with P to carry out building works at his premises. P refused to pay F's final account, alleging that the works were unfinished, there were no certificates of practical or final completion, snagging had not been done and delay. F commenced an adjudication. However, documents were not served on P at the correct address. When P received the documents, his solicitors sought an extension for submission of P's case, but F refused. The adjudicator proceeded, and awarded F £169,267. F then served a Statutory Demand upon P. P commenced court proceedings claiming that he had overpaid F, and thus that he challenged the adjudicator's decision. P sought to set the demand aside, but failed. P appealed. The Court found that the District Judge at first...
-
21st July 2000Ken Griffin & John Tomlinson v Midas Homes Ltd HT-00-252This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes A notice of adjudication should define the disputes referred with precision in accordance with the Scheme. A dispute as to payment will not arise until the paying party has had a sufficient opportunity to consider the application for payment and responded. The Court can sever those parts of an award made without jurisdiction from other parts. HHJ Humphrey LLoyd QC, Technology & Construction Court 21 July 2000 M defended G's application to enforce an adjudicator's decision by summary judgment on the grounds that G did not comply with the provisions of the Scheme for Construction Contracts. M submitted that the dispute had to be defined with precision in the notice of adjudication. M had determined G's employment under the DOM/1 form of sub-contract,...
-
17th July 2000KNS Industrial Services Ltd v Sindall Ltd [2000] HT 00/164This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes A party has to accept or challenge a decision in full; it cannot pick and choose and say that some parts were without jurisdiction and rely upon the rest. An adjudicator may make an error in deducting sums where no notice to withhold has been served, but will not exceed his jurisdiction in so doing. HHJ Humphrey LLoyd QC, Technology & Construction Court 17 July 2000 K was S's sub-contractor, under a contract incorporating the DOM/1 standard terms, including an adjudication clause. There was also a right to determine the contract, and payment of valuations was due 28 days after receipt of the main contract payment certificate. Disputes arose between the parties over two of K's applications. K believed that it should have been paid by a certain...
-
30th June 2000Nottingham Community Housing Assoc v Powerminster Ltd [2000] BLR 309This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes The Court found that the maintenance and repair of gas appliances within buildings were "construction operations" within the meaning of section 105(a) of the Act. Hence, parties to such contracts should have a right to adjudication of disputes. Dyson J, Technology & Construction Court 30 June 2000 N owned community housing tenanted properties. It engaged P on a one year contract to carry out an annual service on each gas appliance in N's properties, and supply a repair and breakdown service. The gas appliances comprised central heating systems, fires and cookers. P rendered invoices to N for work done. N refused to pay, stating it had a substantial counterclaim. P purported to give notice of adjudication in relation to the non-payment. N commenced...
-
23rd June 2000Stiell Ltd v Riema Control Systems Ltd [2000] Inner Ct of Session X1/53/00This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes An arrestment may be made in court proceedings to freeze monies that an adjudicator has previously held are not due and owing. Such an arrestment is not oppressive Lord Prosser, Lord Philip and Lord Caplan, Extra Division, Inner House, Court of Session (Appeal from Sherriffdom of South Strathclyde, Dumfries & Galloway) 23 June 2000 This case concerns the issue of arrestment in Scottish proceedings. R instructed S to carry out supply and installation of control and electrical equipment. The contract contained an adjudication clause providing that the CEDR rules applied. In December 1999, S commenced adjudication proceedings concerning a valuation dispute, including valuation of additional work. In February, the adjudicator found that the total...
-
21st June 2000R.G.Carter Ltd v Edmund Nuttall HT-00-230This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes The Court held that a clause providing that a difference was not a dispute capable of reference to adjudication until mediation had taken place did not comply with Section 108 because a party has a right to adjudicate disputes (including differences) at any time. Such a clause attempts to postpone the right to adjudicate. HHJ Thornton QC, Technology & Construction Court 21 June 2000 C entered into a sub-contract with EN, incorporating the standard terms of sub-contract DOM/1. These contained an adjudication clause, clause 38A. A dispute arose concerning the appropriate method for valuing the work, which EN referred to adjudication. An adjudicator was appointed by the RICS, but C applied to the Court for an injunction to stop the adjudication...
-
16th June 2000Christiani & Nielsen Ltd v Lowry Centre Dev Co Ltd [2000] HT 001/59 TCCThis summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes The parties could not contract out of the HGCRA by stating that a Deed executed after 1 May 1998 takes effect from an earlier date. A party may waive the right to rely upon jurisdictional arguments in court if it does not raise them before the adjudicator. An adjudicator should investigate any jurisdictional challenge and give a non-binding decision HHJ Thornton QC, Technology & Construction Court 29 June 2000 The dispute arose when L deducted liquidated damages from sums otherwise due to C under a contract made by deed in December 1998, incorporating the ICE conditions, 5th edition. Work had commenced earlier, under a letter of intent dated 11 August 1997. The Deed stated that notwithstanding the date of its execution, it would take effect from...