- 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-
10th September 2008AC Hall Airconditioning Pty Ltd v Schiavello (Vic) Pty Ltd [2008] VCC 1169Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002, s.16, 18 and 23 was a valid election made under s.16? Kell & Rigby Pty Ltd v Guardian International Properties Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 554 JAR Developments Pty Ltd v Castlepex Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 737. ---
-
10th September 2008Glenrich Builders Pty Ltd v 1-5 Grantham Street Pty Ltd & 415 Brunswick Road Pty Ltd [2008] VCC 1170Catchwords: Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995, s.57 stay application does Act apply to owner-developer? alternative claims under contract and under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002. Summary judgment application general conditions of contract AS 2124-1992 Clause 42.1 Novawest Contracting Pty Ltd v Taras Nominees Pty Ltd [1998] VSC 205 whether applicable where no payment certificate issued by Superintendent. Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002, s.14 and 15 whether payment schedule provided.
-
21st August 2008J Hutchinson Pty Ltd v Galform Pty Ltd & Ors [2008] QSC 205PROCEDURE – PROCEDURAL MATTERS – whether the second payment claim, adjudication application and adjudication were an abuse of process Legislation - Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004, s9, s19 - Judicial Review Act 1991 - Supreme Court Act 1995, s48 - Supreme Court Regulations 1998, s4
-
21st August 2008Broad Construction Services (NSW) Pty Ltd v Michael Vadasz [2008] NSWSC 1057BUILDING AND ENGINEERING CONTRACTS - Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 - adjudication determination - adjudicator did not consider expert's report - whether denial of procedural fairness - whether report constituted a submission 'duly made' in support of payment schedule. LEGISLATION CITED: - Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999
-
20th August 2008J & Q Investments Pty Ltd v ZS Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 203Stay pending appeal - Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 LEGISLATION CITED: Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999
-
19th August 2008CSC Braehead Leisure Ltd v Laing O'Rourke Scotland Ltd [2008] ScotCS CSOH_119
-
19th August 2008Perform (NSW) Pty Ltd v Mev-Aus Pty Ltd t/a Novatec Construction Systems & Anor [2008] NSWSC 858Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) - Whether section 14 (3) of the Act permits incorporation by reference into a payment schedule - Whether respondent’s payment schedule indicated, within the meaning of s. 14 (4) of the Act as reasons for withholding payment, the reasons contained in an anterior payment schedule Whether the Adjudicator made an error of a character that was within his jurisdiction Whether the Adjudicator’s findings constitute a failure by the Adjudicator to comply with the requirements contained in s.22(2)(d) of the Act - Whether Adjudicator denied natural justice Whether the Adjudicator failed in good faith to exercise the power to make an adjudication. LEGISLATION CITED: Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW)
-
19th August 2008Peter's of Kensington v Seersucker P/L [2008] NSWSC 897BUILDING AND ENGINEERING CONTRACTS – whether contract for provision of architectural services was a construction contract – whether payment claim complied with requirements of s13(2) Building & Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 – whether adjudicator’s decision on sufficiency of information in payment claim is open to review. LEGISLATION CITED: Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 - Civil Procedure Act 2005 - Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 - Uniform Civil Procedure Rules
-
15th August 2008VGC Construction Ltd v Jackson Civil Engineering Ltd [2008] EWHC 2082 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Provided it is sufficiently clear when it is disputed, it may not be necessary to provide a full explanation of a sum claimed in an application for payment. Subsequent details of the claim can be introduced during the course of an adjudication in response to a criticism that the claim is unparticularised without creating a new dispute. Clear words and dealings must be adopted if a right to challenge jurisdiction is to be reserved. Mr Justice Akenhead – Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court Background Jackson Civil Engineering Limited (“Jackson”) employed VGC Construction Limited (“VGC”) to carry out construction work on the M3 motorway. Completion of the work was delayed.VGC issued an application...
-
15th August 2008CJP Builders Ltd v William Verry Ltd [2008] EWHC 2025 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes When an adjudicator makes an error in his decision it is usually enforced by the courts irrespective of the error. However, where that error leads to a breach of the rules of natural justice by that adjudicator it may be challenged. Mr Justice Akenhead – Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court Background The parties entered into a sub-contract, under which the claimants were to carry out brickwork, blockwork and stonework as part of a construction project. The defendants failed to pay an interim payment application by the claimants and the claimants duly started adjudication proceedings. The defendant did not serve a Response to the claimant’s Referral Notice within the requisite time stated in...