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.

  • 5th May 2009
    Letchworth Roofing v Sterling Building Company [2009] EWHC 1119
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary In this case the court held that (a) where an adjudicator had not been appointed in accordance with the provisions of the adjudication clause in the contract, he lacked jurisdiction and his award was unenforceable; (b) where the Scheme for Construction Contracts applied, there could be two adjudications on the same issue at the same time provided that no decision had been reached in either adjudication. Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Coulson BACKGROUND Sterling Building Company (“Sterling”) employed Letchworth Roofing Company (“Letchworth”) to carry out roofing works pursuant to a subcontract incorporating the JCT Standard Form of Subcontract DOM/1.  Following completion of the works, Sterling...
  • 8th April 2009
    HS Works Limited v Enterprise Managed Services Limited [2009] EWHC 729 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary Where a Court is asked to deal simultaneously with two adjudication enforcements between the same parties which decide different things but which might or do impact on each other, the court, may subject to specified steps, set off one decision against another. Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Akenhead BACKGROUND HS Works Limited (“HSW”) is a civil engineering contractor within the utilities sector and was employed by Enterprise Managed Services Limited (“Enterprise”), a utilities contractor, as a sub-contractor to assist with clean water, network repair and maintenance services for Thames Water.  The sub-contract works included the repair, reinstatement and re-surfacing of highways in and around...
  • 6th April 2009
    Rupert Cordle v Vanessa Nicholson [2009] EWHC 1314 (QB)
  • 27th March 2009
    The Mayor and Burgess of the London Borough of Camden v Makers UK Limited [2009] EWHC 605
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-lawnow.com/adjudication SUMMARY Courts have a discretion to impose conditions when setting aside a default judgment, but will rarely – if ever – exercise that discretion so as to prevent parties from pursuing their statutory right under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (“the Construction Act”) to adjudicate “at any time”. Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Akenhead BACKGROUND The London Borough of Camden (“Camden”) engaged Makers UK Ltd (“Makers”) to carry out refurbishment works to the value of £4.3m.  Disputes arose concerning variations and delays.  Camden alleged that Makers were in default of their contractual obligation to proceed regularly and diligently and purported to...
  • 12th March 2009
    Mr & Mrs C Shaw v Massey Foundations & Pilings Ltd [2009] EWHC 493
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary In this case, the Court held that a party who had been ordered to pay a sum of money by an adjudicator was not entitled to stay court proceedings which had been brought to enforce the adjudicator’s decision in order to commence an arbitration.  The Court also held that the contract in this case was not exempt from statutory adjudication on the grounds that it had been made with a “residential occupier” under s 106 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (“the Act”), because, at the time the contract was made, the defendants neither occupied, nor intended to occupy, the property where the works were to be carried out as their residence. Mr Justice Coulson, Technology and Construction...
  • 24th February 2009
    Linnett v Halliwells LLP [2009] EWHC 319
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes [2009] EWHC 319Declining to accept the Adjudicator’s terms of engagement and challenging his jurisdiction will not usually save a party from contractual liability for the Adjudicator’s fees where that party still participates in the proceedings notwithstanding that it does so on a without prejudice basis.  Where there has been a failure to comply with the detailed procedural aspects of the JCT 1998 adjudication clause, the Court should be slow to find that this renders the relevant part of the process a nullity so as to deprive the Adjudicator of jurisdiction.   Where there is an express adjudication provision which complies with s.108 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (“the Construction Act”),...
  • 4th February 2009
    Mead General Building v Dartmoor Properties [2009] EWHC 200
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary In this case the court held that (a) where an adjudicator had not been appointed in accordance with the provisions of the adjudication clause in the contract, he lacked jurisdiction and his award was unenforceable; (b) where the Scheme for Construction Contracts applied, there could be two adjudications on the same issue at the same time provided that no decision had been reached in either adjudication. Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Akenhead BACKGROUND Dartmoor engaged Mead to carry out a £1.6m development in Devon.  Mead commenced an adjudication in which it was awarded about £350,000, and sought summary judgment under CPR Part 24 to enforce the Adjudicator’s decision.  Dartmoor raised neither...
  • 4th February 2009
    F.W.Cook Ltd v Shimizu (UK) Ltd [2000] HT 99-289
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes If a referral notice does not seek payment of a particular sum of money, then the adjudicator's findings should be implemented by considering the decision in the context of the contract and pre-existing payment notices to ascertain the amount due. HHJ Humphrey LLoyd QC, Technology & Construction Court 4 February 2000 The dispute arose out of a contract for mechanical works. C served a notice of referral to adjudication and sought the "reinstatement" of one claim against S and the "removal" of three items that S had charged to its account. The notice did not expressly seek payment of any sum. The adjudicator gave a ruling on the four issues, but did not identify any money as payable. The parties could not agree how the adjudicator's findings...
  • 31st January 2009
    YCMS Ltd (t/a Young Construction Management Services) v Grabiner & Anor [2009] EWHC 127 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-lawnow.com/adjudication SUMMARY In this case the Court held that a revision that an Adjudicator had purported to make to his award under the “slip rule” was invalid as the Adjudicator had not merely corrected a “patent error” but had in fact had second thoughts as to the basis for calculating the award.  The Court also decided that the defendants should not be permitted to set-off against the award the amount of a subsequent award in their favour that had not yet fallen due for payment.   Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Akenhead BACKGROUND The Grabiners employed YCMS to carry out extensive works to their London home.  Interim Certificates were issued regularly by the Architect.  In June 2007, the Architect signed and issued 2...
  • 30th January 2009
    Thermal Energy Construction v AE&E Lentjes UK [2009] EWHC 408
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary Although adjudicators’ decisions are only temporarily binding, it is important that, where reasons are required and given, they enable the parties to understand what has been decided and why. His Honour Judge Stephen Davies, Queen’s Bench Division, Manchester District Registry BACKGROUND Thermal was engaged by AE&E under a sub-contract to provide mechanical erection services in the context of desulphurisation works at a power station.  A dispute arose over AE&E’s valuation and certification of Thermal’s claims for payment under the sub-contract, which Thermal referred to adjudication under the TeCSA Rules, requesting that the Adjudicator provide reasons for his decision.  The TeCSA Rules required...