- 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-
3rd November 2006Hart Investments Ltd v Fidler [2006] EWHC 2857 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes This case raises two points. First, that decision of an adjudicator where the referral notice was served outside the permitted time will be unenforceable. Secondly, a contract in writing will only be considered as such for the purposes of Section 107 of the Construction Act where all of the terms of the contract are in writing. The effect of this is that letters of intent will often fall short of the requirement.His Honour Judge Peter Coulson QC - Queen's Bench Division, Technology and Construction CourtOn 1 November 2002, Hart Investments Limited (“Hart”) sent a letter of intent to Larchpark, via its agents, instructing Larchpark to carry out extensive building works at a property that Hart owned at Muswell Hill, London. The letter of intent...
-
1st November 2006Chorus Group v Berner (BVI) Ltd & Anor [2006] EWHC 3622 (TCC)
-
31st October 2006State of Queensland v Epoca Constructions Pty Ltd & Anor [2006] QSC 324JUDICIAL REVIEW – REVIEW DECISIONS – decisions to which Judicial Review legislation applies – where the applicant sought judicial review of a decision by an adjudicator under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004(Qld) ("BCIPA")– whether judicial review under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) excluded – whether the adjudicator’s decision is of an administrative character so as to be reviewable under Part 3 of the Judicial Review Act 1991(Qld) - JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – GENERALLY – whether the application for judicial review ought to be dismissed in the exercise of discretion under ss 12, 13, 30 or 48 of the Judicial Review Act - JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – ERROR - OF LAW – whether the adjudicator erred in failing to observe the provisions of the BCIPA – whether...
-
18th October 2006Jem Developments Pty Ltd v Hansen Yuncken Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1087Building and construction - Building Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 - Proper construction of s 25 (4) of Act - Meaning of words "commences proceedings to have the judgment set aside" - Whether a respondent to an application under the Act against whom a judgment debt following a determination has been entered, may albeit eschewing making an application to have the judgment set aside, seek any and if so what form of declaratory and associated relief challenging the validity of the determination. ACTS CITED: Building Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) - Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW)
-
12th October 2006Knapman R J Ltd. v Richards [2006] EWHC 2518 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes It seems that non-compliance with part of an adjudicator’s decision will not preclude a party from obtaining a court order for enforcement of other parts of the decision that were decided by the adjudicator in its favour.Furthermore, the court will not, as a general rule, assume that the parties have abandoned any part of the existing contract pursuant to an adjudication order unless it can be demonstrated that the adjudicator was expressly asked to do something, or decide something, which under the contract would be the responsibility of either one of the parties or the contract administrator.His Honour Judge Coulson QC – Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction CourtBackground Richards engaged Knapman to build two detached...
-
11th October 2006Abel Point Marina (Whitsundays) Pty Ltd v Uher and Anor [2006] QSC 295JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – EXCLUSION OF PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – PROCEDURES PROVIDED BY STATUTE – where the applicant sought review of a decision by an adjudicator under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) – where the adjudicator did not provide the applicant with the opportunity to provide further information – where the adjudicator was bound to follow procedures set out in the Act – whether rules of natural justice were breached JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – ERROR OF LAW – whether the adjudicator committed an error of law - JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – GENERALLY – whether there was sufficient evidence or other material to justify the adjudicator’s decision – whether the adjudicator made a decision in relation to a jurisdictional...
-
11th October 2006Gray & Sons Builders (Bedford) Ltd. v Essential Box Company Ltd. [2006] EWHC 2520 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Defendants who inform the court at the eleventh hour of their decision not to contest an application for adjudication enforcement may well find themselves stung by an order for costs calculated on an indemnity basis.His Honour Judge Coulson QC – Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court Gray brought an application for summary judgment to enforce an adjudication decision against Essential Box. Essential Box contested the application until the morning before the hearing, when it indicated that it did not oppose Gray’s application. The issue of the measure of costs fell to be determined by the court.Judge Coulson QC took the view that in applications for adjudication enforcement, where the defendant only informs...
-
3rd October 2006McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) P/L v National Grid Gas plc [2006] EWHC 2551 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes In the absence of contractual provisions relating to adjudication, does an agreement settling a dispute under a construction contract (which does duly provide for adjudication) fall within the remit of the statutory adjudication provisions and/or contractual provisions for adjudication contained in the construction contract? The courts have reached the conclusion that it depends on whether the agreement is a separate, standalone settlement agreement or a supplemental agreement that resolves the dispute by varying the construction contract. The former will not be subject to the adjudication provisions either under the HGCRA or under the construction contract, whereas the latter will be a variation of the construction contract and therefore...
-
29th September 2006Brady Constructions Pty Ltd v Dominion Lifestyle Tower Apartment Pty Ltd [2006] VCC 1830Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002, Sections 14, 15, 18, 25, 27 and 42 Summary Judgment Application Accord and satisfaction Domestic Building Contracts Act 1995, Sections 54 and 57. --APPEARANCES: For the Plaintiff For the Defendant Counsel Mr A Schlicht Mr A Kincaid Solicitors Brendan J Archer Freehills
-
29th September 2006CCD v Drywall [2006] NSWSC 1012Corporations Law. Application under 459G of the Corporations Act 2001 to set aside statutory demand. Formal defects in the affidavit in support a reason for setting aside the demand. Genuine dispute and off-setting claim established. Demand set aside.