Case Study Archive

Below you can see our full case archive.

There are a total of 1503 cases in our archive
  • 17th October 2008
    Kier Regional Ltd (t/a Wallis) v City & General (Holborn) Ltd [2008] EWHC 2454 (TCC)
  • 15th October 2008
    Trans Australian Constructions Pty Ltd v Nilsen (SA) Pty Ltd [2008] NTSC 42
    Construction Contracts (Security of Payments) Act (NT) – whether the appointed adjudicator made his determination in accordance with the requirements of the adjudication process fixed by the Act – whether adjudicator failed to determine issue raised – whether a valid “payment claim” existed under the contract and within the meaning of the Act to give rise to a “payment dispute” –  claims dismissed.
  • 3rd October 2008
    Walton Construction (Qld) Pty Ltd v Salce & Ors [2008] QSC 235
    CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – REMUNERATION – RECOVERY – Validity of a decision of an adjudicator – Claim that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction CONTRACTS – BUILDING, ENGINEERING AND RELATED CONTRACTS – GENERALLY – Whether a “construction contract” was formed in the circumstances – Where there was already a contract for the provision of the same services at the site with another company – Whether the “agreement” amounted to a “construction contract” or a guarantee for the obligations of that other company
  • 25th September 2008
    Zurich Specialities London Ltd v Thiess Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 1010
    [INSURANCE] [BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY SECURITY OF PAYMENT ACT 1999] construction of insurance policy provision requiring insured to take reasonable precautions to safeguard subject matter insured from loss or damage  whether such provision is a construction contract between the insured and insurer LEGISLATION CITED: Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999
  • 25th September 2008
    Birmingham City Council v Paddison Construction Ltd [2008] EWHC 2254 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit An adjudicator is entitled to make no decision on an issue which is too complex to decide fairly and impartially – but if the adjudicator does make a decision, there’s no second bite of the same cherry.Her Honour Judge Frances Kirkham – Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court Background Birmingham City Council (“BCC”) engaged Paddison Construction Limited (“Paddison”) to undertake construction work for a new community and training centre.  Practical completion was delayed, and a dispute arose as to which of the parties was responsible for the delay and its financial consequences. Paddison referred the dispute to adjudication, claiming an extension of time up to the date of practical...
  • 19th September 2008
    Wormall Pty Ltd v Marchese Investments PTY LTD [2008] WADC 140
    Building and construction - Determination made under Construction Contract Act 2004 (WA) - Application for leave to enforce as a judgment of District Court - Turns on own facts Legislation: Construction Contract Act 2004 (WA) s 43
  • 18th September 2008
    Norwest Holst Ltd v Carfin Developments Ltd [2008] ScotCS CSOH_138
  • 17th September 2008
    Benfield Construction Ltd v Trudson (Hatton) Ltd [2008] EWHC 2333 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit An adjudicator has no jurisdiction where the same or substantially the same dispute has previously been the subject of an adjudicator’s decision.  If the underlying dispute is the same in successive adjudications then an adjudicator will not have jurisdiction, even if the legal issues which are raised in those successive adjudications differ from those raised in the original adjudication. Mr Justice Coulson, Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court Background Trudson engaged Benfield to carry out works pursuant to a JCT Form of Contract (With Contractor’s Design) 1998 edition, which provided for liquidated damages in the event that the date for completion was not met.  The works were seriously delayed...
  • 16th September 2008
    Vitpol Building Service v Samen [2008] EWHC 2283 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit The TCC cannot deprive a claimant of its potential right to adjudication by refusing to determine the existence and/or terms of a contract simply because a pre-action protocol process dealing with this and other issues has already been substantially completed.    Mr Justice Coulson, Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court Background Michael Samen invited tenders for building works to convert a London hotel back to its original status of family home.  Vitpol’s tender was successful and works were commenced in July 2006 before a contract had been agreed.  Contractual negotiations continued as the works progressed.  Disputes arose between the parties as to payment and defects claims. ...
  • 15th September 2008
    Treasure & Son Ltd v Dawes [2008] EWHC 2181 (TCC)