England Cases

There are over 300 English cases in our database. This page shows all the cases by default, but you can filter the list by using the search tool above. You can search within the title, key terms, court name, judge's name and case notes fields by inputting a word, or words, or part of a word, or a phrase, into the search box.

  • 29th June 2015
    Caledonian Modular Ltd v Mar City Developments Ltd [2015] EWHC 1855 (TCC)
  • 17th June 2015
    Aspect Contracts (Asbestos) Limited v Higgins Construction Plc [2015] UKSC 38
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes SUMMARY   (1) Where the Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998 (the “Scheme”) applies to a construction contract there is an implied term which provides that if a dispute between the parties is referred to adjudication and one party has paid money to the other in compliance with the Adjudicator’s decision, that party remains entitled to have the decision finally determined by legal proceedings and, if or to the extent that the dispute was finally determined in its favour, to have the money repaid to it. (2) In such a scenario the limitation period applying to the paying party’s cause of action arising from this payment is six years from the time of payment (or potentially twelve years in...
  • 22nd May 2015
    ISG Retail Ltd v Castletech Construction Ltd [2015] EWHC 1443 (TCC)
  • 22nd May 2015
    Leeds City Council v Waco UK Ltd [2015] EWHC 1400 (TCC)
  • 20th March 2015
    Khurana v Webster Construction Limited [2015] EWHC 758 (TCC)
  • 11th March 2015
    CSK Electrical Contractors Ltd v Kingwood Electrical Services Ltd [2015] EWHC 667 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary (1)Where a party: (a) fails to pay invoices in accordance with the contract; (b) fails to serve a valid Pay Less Notice within the proper time; and (c) expressly says that the claims were disputed and would be defended when the other party writes to advise that the matter will be referred to adjudication, a dispute has crystallised between the parties. (2) Where the application for the appointment of an adjudicator in error refers to a list of preferred adjudicators and no such list is attached to the application the situation is entirely different to that in Eurocom Ltd v Siemens Plc [2014] EWHC 3710 (TCC) and fraudulent misrepresentation, as found in that case, has not occurred. (3) Adjudication is a rough and ready process because it has...
  • 11th March 2015
    Ecovision Systems Limited v Vinci Construction UK Limited [2015] EWHC 587 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary (1) Where the express, or if not express, implicit assumption underlying the correspondence between the Adjudicator and the parties was that he had given a direction that the Response was to be served within seven days of the Referral, the fact that the direction was initially given before receipt of the Referral did not invalidate the direction. (2) An Adjudicator has no power to determine what rules of adjudication apply if there is a dispute about those rules and the dispute affects the procedure for appointment, the procedure to be followed or the status of the decision. (3) A notice of adjudication or purported nomination made under a contractual provision or legislative power which, on a correct analysis, does not apply is invalid. Technology...
  • 10th March 2015
    Paice & Anor v MJ Harding (t/a MJ Harding Contractors) [2015] EWHC 661 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary Where an adjudicator had failed to disclose prior conversations with one of the parties about the dispute at hand, a fair-minded observer would conclude that that adjudicator had been biased. It must be shown that the adjudicator had actual knowledge of the content of the conversation in order to prove bias. The other party to the dispute did not waive their right to argue apparent bias simply because they knew a conversation had taken place. BACKGROUND Gary Paice and Kim Springall (the “Claimants”) entered into a contract dated 25 March 2013, incorporating the JCT Intermediate Form 2011 edition, with MJ Harding (the “Defendant”) for the construction of two residential houses in Purley, Surrey. By the end of September...
  • 27th February 2015
    Galliford Try Building v Estura Ltd [2015] EWHC 412 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary The paying party under a JCT Design and Build form of contract who has (a) failed to provide pay less or payment notices to dispute an interim payment application, and (b) been found at adjudication to owe the sum due, has no right to commence a second adjudication to determine the true valuation of the interim application. For final account payments, however, subsequent adjudication may still be an option.   Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart background Galliford Try Building (“GTB”) was employed by Estura to carry out works at the Salcombe Harbour Hotel, Devon under an amended JCT Design and Build Contract 2011 (the “Contract”). GTB served Interim Application 60, which was one of...
  • 17th February 2015
    PP Construction Limited v Geoffrey Osborne Limited [2015] EWHC 325 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary A construction contract must include a written provision giving an adjudicator the right to correct a typographical or clerical error (the slip rule). Here the parties' contract provided that they had 14 days to request a correction under the slip rule, with the amended decision being issued within seven days of that request. For a request to be operative and to engage these time periods, the error must be identified with sufficient clarity that a reasonable adjudicator would understand that he had made an error, what the error was, why it was an error and what alteration was necessary. Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Coulson BACKGROUND PP Construction Limited (“PP”) and Geoffrey Osborne Limited (“GOL”)...