Case Study Archive

Below you can see our full case archive.

There are a total of 1503 cases in our archive
  • 17th July 2013
    Thameside Construction Company v Steven & Anor [2013] EWHC 2071
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit summary When an adjudicator makes an order that one party must pay another, the order must be honoured and no set-off or withholding against payment of that amount should be permitted. However, there are limited exceptions to this rule, namely where: (1) there is a specified contractual right to a set-off which does not conflict with the statutory requirement for immediate enforcement; (2) an adjudicator has simply declared that an amount is due rather than having directed that it should be paid; and (3) an adjudicator’s decision permits further set-off. Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Akenhead. Background Mr and Mrs Stevens (“Mr and Mrs S”) entered into a contract with Thameside Construction Company Limited (“Thameside”)...
  • 12th July 2013
    ABB Limited v BAM Nuttall Limited [2013] EWHC 1983 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit summary Reliance by an adjudicator on a clause in a contract which had not been referred to or relied upon by either party or raised by the adjudicator before he published his decision, was a material breach of the rules of natural justice. Although courts should be slow to overturn adjudicator’s decisions as it is not the function of the court to be an appellate tribunal for adjudicator’s decisions, the adjudicator’s breach of natural justice was of considerable importance to the outcome of the resolution of the dispute and could well have been decisive. Therefore his decision was invalid and unenforceable. Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Akenhead. Background ABB Limited (“ABB”) was a main contractor...
  • 5th July 2013
    Adelaide Interior Linings Pty Ltd v Romaldi Constructions Pty Ltd [2013] SASC 110
    The appellant in this matter appeals from an interlocutory decision of a judge of the District Court. The respondent was found liable by an adjudicator under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2009 (SA) (`the Act') to pay the appellant money owed for work completed. The respondent sought an injunction from the District Court preventing the appellant from obtaining the adjudication certificate. It is alleged the appellant is impecunious and unable to repay the monies if the respondent is successful in its claim for damages. The judge granted an injunction restraining the appellant from obtaining an adjudication certificate under the Act, finding there was a high level of likelihood the appellant was insolvent.
  • 4th July 2013
    Bellway Homes Limited v Seymour )Civil Engineering Contractors) Limited [2013] EWHC 1890 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit Summary The Court was asked to resolve the issue of costs between the parties, following the settlement of proceedings at the 11th hour before trial. The proceedings concerned a claim for repayment of a sum of £513,000 in prolongation and increased costs, which had been paid pursuant to an adjudicator’s decision. The claimant finally settled for £146,953 after having paid a sum marginally greater than that to the defendant by way of the release of retention monies which had become payable part way through the proceedings. In deciding which party should be liable for costs, the Court took careful consideration of (i) the terms of the final settlement, (ii) Part 36 and other offers made by the parties, (iii) each party’s approach...
  • 4th July 2013
    KPA Architects Pty Ltd v Diploma Constructions (WA) Pty Ltd [2013] WADC 106
    Practice and procedure - Application for leave to enforce determination - Principles governing the grant of leave - Onus
  • 3rd July 2013
    FG Skerritt Ltd v Caledonian Building Systems Ltd [2013] EWHC 1898
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit summary (1) If a claimant in adjudication enforcement proceedings is insolvent, a defendant will normally be entitled to a stay of execution if he has real grounds for a counterclaim that could be raised as a defence by way of equitable set-off in respect of the sum awarded by the Adjudicator. (2) In principle, a bond or guarantee provided by a third party which provides sufficient security for the repayment of the judgment sum is an acceptable way for an insolvent claimant to avoid a stay of execution. In such a case, the defendant is entitled to be provided with security which is equivalent to the security it would have had based on the claimant's financial position at the time when the relevant contract was made. Technology and Construction Court,...
  • 1st July 2013
    National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside v AEW Architects and Designers Limited EWHC 2403 (TCC)
  • 28th June 2013
    Westshield Civil Engineering Ltd v Buckingham Group Contracting Ltd [2013] EWHC 1825
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit Judgement date: 28 June 2013 summary (1) Where an adjudication clause provides that an adjudicator’s decision will be final and binding unless proceedings are issued within a specified period of the decision, it will be sufficient to prevent the decision from becoming final and binding when proceedings are issued by the Court – they do not have to be served as well. (2) Where the parties to a dispute have given an adjudicator permission to determine who are the proper parties to the contract giving rise to the dispute, his decision on that issue will be binding in the same way as any other adjudication decision.  (3) Where the financial position of a party seeking to enforce an adjudicator’s decision is the same as it was when...
  • 28th June 2013
    Hill as Trustee for the Ashmore Superannuation Benefit Fund v Halo Architectural Design Services Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 842
    Procedure - duty to opponent – communications with the Court - Bar Rule 53 - Solicitors Rule 23
  • 25th June 2013
    Agripower Australia Ltd v J & D Rigging Pty Ltd & Ors [2013] QSC 164
    Contracts – Building, Engineering and related Contracts – Remuneration – Statutory Regulation of Entitlement to and recovery of progress payments – Adjudication of payment claims