- 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-
28th January 2009Bovis Lend Lease v The Trustees of the London Clinic [2009] EWHC 64This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary Absent fraud, it will be “a rare case, if ever” that an Adjudicator will be found to have materially breached natural justice by not giving a party a reasonable opportunity to present its case where that party has not raised the issue during the adjudication. The Hon. Mr Justice Akenhead, Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court BACKGROUND The Trustees of the London Clinic (“the Clinic”) entered into a redevelopment contract with Bovis Lend Lease (“Bovis”). Practical completion was achieved in August 2006, 58 weeks late. Over the course of the works and following practical completion, Bovis made numerous applications for extensions of time and prolongation costs but the...
-
27th January 2009Able Construction (UK) Ltd v Forest Property Development Ltd [2009] EWHC 159This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary It is not generally acceptable for parties to seek to avoid enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision by raising an issue which requires oral evidence in the hope that the enforcement proceedings will then have to be adjourned. The Court awarded the Claimant interest at 8% over base rate and costs on an indemnity basis. The Hon. Mr Justice Akenhead, Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court BACKGROUND Forest engaged Able to carry out a residential development in Middlesex. A dispute was referred to an Adjudicator who decided on 24 September 2008 that Able was entitled to £130,927.17 plus VAT plus interest, approximately £160,000 in total. On 9 October the parties agreed a written...
-
21st January 2009Dalkia Energy and Technical Services v Bell Group UK Ltd [2009] EWHC 73This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary Although declaratory relief will “rarely” be granted during an ongoing adjudication, there are situations where it will be appropriate, such as the determination of which contract conditions apply. Mr Justice Coulson, Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court BACKGROUND Dalkia subcontracted works to Bell. Bell referred a dispute over payment to adjudication and an adjudicator was appointed using the procedure set out in Bell’s standard terms and conditions. Dalkia argued that the standard terms and conditions were not incorporated into the contract and that in any event they did not comply with s108 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (“the 1996 Act”). ...
-
8th January 2009OSC Building Services v Interior Dimensions Contracts [2009] EWHC 248This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary Courts won’t be too pedantic or literal when it comes to deciding whether a Referral Notice goes beyond the bounds of the “dispute” identified in the Notice of Adjudication. The Hon. Mr Justice Ramsey BACKGROUND Interior Dimensions Contracts (“IDC”), the main contractor on a medical centre project, engaged OSC Building Services (“OSC”) to carry out certain drainage and site access sub-contract works. As the original sub-contract was for a limited scope of works, it did not contain adjudication provisions or provide for interim payments, but provided for a final account after completion of the works. The works were completed in July 2007. A month before, OSC submitted payment...
-
8th January 2009Austruct Qld Pty Ltd v Independant Pub Group Pty Ltd [2009] QSC 1Building, Engineering and related Contracts - statutory right of debt recovery under s 19 Building and Construction Industry payments Act 2004 (Qld) – where no payment schedule delivered – whether s 19(4)(b)(ii) prevents the respondent arguing that part of claim outside the scope of the contract - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether a breach of s 52 of Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) can be relied on to resist summary judgment despite s 19(4)(b)(ii) of the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) - Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld), s 12, s 18, s 19, - Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991, s 42 - Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 52, s 87 - Bitannia Pty Ltd v Parkline Constructions Pty Ltd [2006] NSWCA 238; 67 NSWLR 9 - Brodyn Pty Ltd t/a Time Cost and Quality v Davenport [2004] NSW...
-
24th December 2008Zebicon Pty Ltd v Remo Construction Pty Ltd [2208] NSWSC 1408Building and Construction - payment claim - served by fax - evidence that recipient machine faulty - whether payment claim "received"
-
19th December 2008Euro Construction Scaffolding Ltd v SLLB Construction Ltd [2008] EWHC 3160 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary Courts and adjudicators alike are encouraged to examine critically assertions that adjudicators lack jurisdiction. In this case the defendant argued that the adjudicator had had no jurisdiction because the contract was not a contract in writing for the purposes of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. The court held that the defendant had no real prospect of establishing this and accordingly enforced the adjudicator’s award. Mr Justice Akenhead, Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court BACKGROUND In May 2006, SLLB engaged Euro under a written contract to provide scaffolding to a house (“the May Contract”). SLLB paid for these works in September 2007. ...
-
18th December 2008Construct Assist Pty Ltd v PDMS Group Pty Ltd [2008] QDC 303Summary Judgment – claim under a “construction contract” – Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 – payment claim served by claimant by pre-paid post to respondent’s principal place of business – no payment schedule served by respondent in reply – whether respondent entitled to resist summary judgment application -Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 rr 292, 293 - Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 ss 3, 7, 12, 17, 18, 19, 100 -Brodyn Pty Ltd t/as Time Cost and Quality v Davenport and Anor [2004] NSWCA 394 - Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Salcedo [2005] QCA 227 - Nepean Engineering Pty Ltd v Total Process Services Pty Ltd (In Liq) [2005] NSWCA 409 -Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91 -
-
16th December 2008Curot Contracts Ltd (t/a Dimension Shop Fitting) v Castle Inns (Stirling) Ltd (t/a Castle Leisure Group) [2008] ScotCS CSOH_179