Case Study Archive

Below you can see our full case archive.

There are a total of 1503 cases in our archive
  • 6th May 2010
    CC No 1 v Reed [2010] NSWSC 294
    Contracts. Building, engineering and related contracts. Progress claims under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 Claim that later claim was an abuse as it reagitated matters the subject of earlier claims. - No adjudication of earlier claims. - Held in the circumstances no abuse. - Proceedings dismissed.
  • 3rd May 2010
    Balfour Beatty v Speedwell Roofing [2010] EWHC 840 (TCC)
  • 28th April 2010
    Macennovy Trust Ltd v Sefton Construction Ltd (In Liquidation) CIV-2009-404-007659
  • 27th April 2010
    AE & E Australia Pty Ltd v Stowe Australia Pty Ltd [2010] QSC 135
    Building and Engineering Contracts – Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) – whether payment claim sought to re-agitate issues decided in earlier adjudication determination – whether issue estoppels arises from adjudication determination –whether claimant should be restrained from serving an adjudication application with respect to items that are re-agitated in new payment claim
  • 23rd April 2010
    Pilon Limited v Breyer Group Plc [2010] EWHC 837 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Summary Where there is no agreement between the parties, whether express or implied, as to the binding nature of a adjudicator’s investigation into his own jurisdiction, the results of such an investigation will not temporarily bind the parties pending the final determination of a dispute, and the challenger can defeat any subsequent enforcement proceedings by showing a respectable case that the adjudicator had reached an incorrect conclusion as to jurisdiction.  Where an adjudicator erroneously restricts his decision on the basis of a mistake as to his own jurisdiction, this may constitute a breach of the rules of natural justice and, in certain circumstances his decision may accordingly be unenforceable.  Where there is only one dispute...
  • 21st April 2010
    Chase Oyster Bar v Hamo Industries [2010] NSWSC 332
    Building and Engineering Contracts – challenge to adjudicator’s determination – whether open for adjudicator to conclude contract was wholly in writing or relevant terms were written – where notice of intention to apply for adjudication of payment claim not given within time limit – whether jurisdictional error by adjudicator in concluding that notice was served within time limit – preliminary questions for determination – date of service on plaintiff of first defendant’s payment claim – date for payment of progress payment – date by which first defendant was required to give notice of intention to seek adjudication – date on which actual notice was given – whether it was open to adjudicator to conclude that first defendant’s notice had been served in accordance with statutory time requirements – Building...
  • 16th April 2010
    Watpac Constructions v Austin Group [2010] NSWSC 347
    Building and Construction – where adjudication determination based on payment claim that included impermissibly re-agitated claims – consequences of issue estoppel and abuse process – whether determination void or whether enforcement of rights may be restrained to extent of invalidity – where adjudication determination involved substantial denial of natural justice – consequences of denial of natural justice – whether determination void – whether determination wholly void or void to extent of denial – Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW).
  • 13th April 2010
    Yuanda (UK) Co Ltd v WW Gear Construction Ltd [2010] EWHC 720 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Summary Where the adjudication provisions in a contract state that the referring party will pay the legal fees of both parties and the adjudicator, irrespective of whether or not it wins or loses, then the provisions will be struck down and replaced by the whole of Part I of the Scheme for Construction Contracts (the “Scheme”).  Where an adjudication clause provides for joinder of the members of the professional team in a multi-party dispute, then the Court will give effect to the provision (and not replace it with the Scheme) by limiting its application to the situation where there is an issue that needs to be resolved against the member of the professional team as well as against the contractor, but will not allow a referral to be...
  • 10th April 2010
    Bell Building v Carfin Developments CA296/09
  • 9th April 2010
    Northbuild Construction Pty Ltd v Central Interior Linings Pty Ltd & Ors [2010] QSC 95
    Administrative Law – Judicial Review – Natural Justice – where there was a construction contract between the applicant and the first respondent – where the matter went to adjudication – where there were discrepancies in the materials before the adjudicator – whether the adjudicator made a bona fide attempt to understand and apply the contract -  Administrative Law – Judicial Review – Natural Justice – where there was a construction contract between the applicant and the first respondent – where variation work was completed by the first respondent – where the matter went to adjudication – where the payment claim included 73 variation claims – where the first  respondent provided a quantity surveyor report with respect to 33 of the variation claims – where the adjudicator did not...