- 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-
21st February 2012Berry Piling Systems Limited v Sheer Projects Limite [2012] EWHC 241 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-lawnow.com/adjudication Judgment date: 21.02.2012 SUMMARY (1) Where a point is made by an Adjudicator in his decision that has not previously been raised with the parties, this will not render his decision unenforceable on grounds of a material breach of natural justice if it does not from part of his reasons for reaching his conclusion and, even if it does, would not have made any material difference to the outcome.(2) When considering a party’s ability to repay a sum for the purposes of an application for a stay of execution of a judgment enforcing an adjudicator’s award, the court should consider that party’s position at the time when the judgment sum might have to be repaid.Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Edwards-StuartBACKGROUNDSheer Projects Limited (“Sheer”)...
-
31st January 2012HM Hire Pty Ltd v National Plant and Equipment Pty Ltd & Anor [2012] QSC 4Building, engineering and related contracts – remuneration – statutory regulation of entitlement to and recovery of progress payments – adjudication of payment claims – where second respondent exercised jurisdiction as an adjudicator under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) (“the Act”) to decide that the applicant should make a progress payment to the respondent – where contract required the applicant to perform clear and grub works, topsoil stripping and placement at project site – where work actually performed was the excavation and removal of timber and topsoil from the site – whether the work carried out for which payment was sought was “construction work” – whether the work carried out fell within the exclusion under s 10(3)(b) of the Act Building and Construction Industry Payments Act...
-
26th January 2012Herbosh-Kiere Marine Contractors Limited v Dover Harbour Board [2012] EWHC 84(TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-lawnow.com/adjudication Judgment date: 26.01.2012 SUMMARY An adjudicator had (1) exceeded his jurisdiction by applying a methodology in determining the dispute which formed no part of the dispute referred to him and (2) breached the rules of natural justice, doubtless unwittingly, by deciding the case not only on a basis that had not been advocated by either party but also without giving each party the opportunity to make submissions at least on the method of assessment which the adjudicator considered that he should adopt.Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice AkenheadBACKGROUNDHerbosh-Kiere Marine Contractors Ltd (“HKM”) entered into a contract with Dover Harbour Board (“DHB”) whereby HKM agreed to provide the equipment, including barges, personnel...
-
23rd January 2012NAP Anglia Ltd v Sun-Land Development Co Limited EWHC 51 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Summary (1) There is a fundamental difference between failure to address a substantive defence and failure to address some particular aspect of evidence or element of a party’s submissions. Whilst the former might give rise to a breach of natural justice, the latter would not. (2) Where the successful party to an adjudication applies to the Court to enforce the adjudicator’s award, the fact that litigation is ongoing on the same issues in the county court is not, except in extraordinary circumstances, a reason for staying execution of any summary judgment given by the Court on the application to enforce the adjudicator’s award. (3) In proceedings to enforce an adjudication award, where there was a risk that the claimant would be unable...
-
20th January 2012Conneq Infrastructure Services (Australia) Pty Ltd and Sino Iron Pty Ltd [2012] WASAT 13Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA) - Whether work connected with desalination plant construction work - Meaning of s 4(3)(c) of the Act – Whether work 'constructing any plant' - Whether desalination plant constructed for the purpose of extracting or processing a 'mineral bearing or other substance' - Whether adjudication application made within time
-
20th January 2012Highlands & Islands Authority Ltd v Shetland Islands Council [2012] ScotCS CSOH_12 (20 January 2012)
-
19th January 2012Shepherd Construction Limited v Pinsent Masons LLP [2012] EWHC 43 (TCC)
-
18th January 2012Witham v Raminea Pty Ltd [2012] WADC 1Building and construction - Payment dispute - Determinations by adjudicator under the Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA) - Application for leave to enforce on a judgment of the District Court - Relevance of judicial review