Case Study Archive

Below you can see our full case archive.

There are a total of 1503 cases in our archive
  • 23rd November 2011
    Partner Projects Limited v Corinthian Nominees Limited [2011] EWHC 2989 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit Judgment Date: 23.11.2011 SUMMARY (1) In a dispute arising under a building contract based upon the JCT 1998 standard form of contract, Private Without Quantities with Contractor’s Design Portion, an adjudicator was entitled to award a contractor interest on sums which had not been certified by the architect.  (2) It was more likely than not that the contractor would not be able to repay the whole of the sum awarded by the adjudicator if ordered to do so but would be able to repay a major part of it.  However, the Court would not, in the particular circumstances of this case, order a stay of execution either in whole or in part of its judgment enforcing the award.Technology and Construction Court, Edwards-Stuart JBACKGROUNDIn October 2003 Corinthian Nominees...
  • 14th November 2011
    Ware Building Pty Ltd v Centre Projects Pty Ltd [2011] QSC 343
    Application to stay of order that money paid into court be paid to Respondent - Appellant's case; it had good prospects of success in an arbitration, imminence of arbitartion, diligence in working to get the arbitration on, danger of any arbitration in its favour being rendered nugatory as the Respondent liable to dissipate the money or be in such a state of insolvency as to render its success nugatory.
  • 10th November 2011
    Carillion Construction v Stephen Andrew Smith [2011] EWHC 2910 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit Judgment date: 10.11. 2011 SUMMARY Issues that are the same or substantially the same as those decided in a previous adjudication cannot be re-evaluated in a further adjudication.  The Court gave guidance as to the factors to be taken into account in considering whether the same or substantially the same dispute has been referred to or resolved in an earlier adjudication.Technology and construction Court, Mr Justice AkenheadBACKGROUNDCarillion Construction Ltd (“Carillion”) was the main contractor employed by The Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust to carry out infrastructure refurbishment at Broadgreen Hospital in Liverpool. In May 2000, Carillion engaged Underground Pipeline Services (the “Sub-Contractor”) to supply,...
  • 4th November 2011
    Hansen Yuncken Pty Ltd v Ian James Ericson trading as Flea’s Concreting & Anor [2011] QSC 327
    Administrative Law – Judicial Review – Grounds of Review – Error of Law – where the applicant was a head contractor and the first respondent a subcontractor – where the first respondent made an adjudication application under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) – where the adjudicator accepted the first respondent’s claim in full – where the applicant obtained an injunction restraining the first respondent from enforcing the adjudication decision until trial or further order – whether the applicant was denied natural justice – whether a denial of natural justice must be substantial or material for relief to be granted
  • 3rd November 2011
    NAP Anglia Ltd v Sun -Land Development Co Ltd [2011] EWHC 2846 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit Judgement date: 3 November 2011(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...
  • 27th October 2011
    Systech International v PC Harrington [2011] EWHC 2722 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit Judgment Date: 27.10.2011 SUMMARY (1) An Adjudicator whose decision had been found to be unenforceable by reason of a failure to comply with the rules of natural justice was still entitled to his fees.Technology and Construction Court, Akenhead J BACKGROUNDThis case arose from the decision in PC Harrington Contractors Limited v Tyroddy Construction Limited [2011] EWHC 813 (TCC) (for a summary click here). Essentially, Tyroddy Construction Limited (“Tyroddy”) had commenced three adjudications against PC Harrington Contractors Limited (“Harrington”) for the repayment of retention monies in relation to three separate sub-contracts.  The same adjudicator was appointed for each adjudication. He was employed by Systech International Limited...
  • 13th October 2011
    Ware Building Pty Ltd v Centre Projects Pty Ltd & Anor (No 1) [2011] QSC 424
    Contracts – Building, engineering and related contracts – Remuneration – Statutory regulation of entitlement to and recovery of progress payments – Payment claims – Adjudication order – Injunction Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004
  • 13th October 2011
    Perrinepod Pty Ltd v Georgiou Building Pty Ltd [2011] WASCA 217
    Administrative law - 'Jurisdictional facts' - Principles - Whether matters in s 31(2)(a) Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA) are 'jurisdictional facts'  Administrative law - Whether adjudicator's exercise of powers under s 31(2) Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA) amenable to prerogative writs of prohibition and certiorari - Construction of privative clause Building and construction - Security of payment legislation - Application for review to State Administrative Tribunal pursuant to s 46(1) Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA) - Construction of s 31 and s 46 - Whether review available where an adjudicator refuses to dismiss an application for adjudication under s 31(2)(a) 
  • 5th October 2011
    QCLNG Pipeline Pty Ltd v McConnel Dowell Constructors Ltd and Consolidated Contracting Company [2011] QSC 292
     Contracts – Building, Engineering and related contracts, Remuneration – Statutory Regulation of entitlement to and recovery of progress payments – Adjudication of payment claims – where applicant engaged first respondent to design and construct a gas pipeline in Central Queensland – where vegetation clearing and pipeline construction along a right of way (ROW works) was suspended pending statutory approvals – where, pursuant to contractual provisions, first respondent issued variation proposal claiming payment for costs occasioned by suspension – where applicant then issued suspension notice confirming first respondent was to immediately cease ROW works – where first respondent issued second variation proposal, and then an interim consolidated claim – where first respondent then issued payment claim – where applicant responded...
  • 30th September 2011
    Syntech Resources Pty Ltd v Peter Campbell Earthmoving (Aust) Pty Ltd & Ors [2011] QSC 293
    Contracts – Building, Engineering related Contracts - where the applicant seeks a declaration that the adjudication is void – where the applicant Syntech delivered its “adjudication response”, in accordance with s 24 of Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) – where a number of documents were attached to, and delivered with, Syntech’s adjudication response, including spreadsheets that had not been included in or supplied with the payment schedule – where the question is not whether the spreadsheets would or might have been admissible under the procedural and evidentiary rules applicable to Supreme Court litigation; the question is whether the adjudicator in this case failed to meet the statutory conditions which were essential for a valid decision to be made – where s 26(2)(d) required the adjudicator, in the circumstances,...