- 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
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.
-
28th January 2009Bovis Lend Lease v The Trustees of the London Clinic [2009] EWHC 64This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary Absent fraud, it will be “a rare case, if ever” that an Adjudicator will be found to have materially breached natural justice by not giving a party a reasonable opportunity to present its case where that party has not raised the issue during the adjudication. The Hon. Mr Justice Akenhead, Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court BACKGROUND The Trustees of the London Clinic (“the Clinic”) entered into a redevelopment contract with Bovis Lend Lease (“Bovis”). Practical completion was achieved in August 2006, 58 weeks late. Over the course of the works and following practical completion, Bovis made numerous applications for extensions of time and prolongation costs but the...
-
27th January 2009Able Construction (UK) Ltd v Forest Property Development Ltd [2009] EWHC 159This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary It is not generally acceptable for parties to seek to avoid enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision by raising an issue which requires oral evidence in the hope that the enforcement proceedings will then have to be adjourned. The Court awarded the Claimant interest at 8% over base rate and costs on an indemnity basis. The Hon. Mr Justice Akenhead, Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court BACKGROUND Forest engaged Able to carry out a residential development in Middlesex. A dispute was referred to an Adjudicator who decided on 24 September 2008 that Able was entitled to £130,927.17 plus VAT plus interest, approximately £160,000 in total. On 9 October the parties agreed a written...
-
21st January 2009Dalkia Energy and Technical Services v Bell Group UK Ltd [2009] EWHC 73This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary Although declaratory relief will “rarely” be granted during an ongoing adjudication, there are situations where it will be appropriate, such as the determination of which contract conditions apply. Mr Justice Coulson, Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court BACKGROUND Dalkia subcontracted works to Bell. Bell referred a dispute over payment to adjudication and an adjudicator was appointed using the procedure set out in Bell’s standard terms and conditions. Dalkia argued that the standard terms and conditions were not incorporated into the contract and that in any event they did not comply with s108 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (“the 1996 Act”). ...
-
8th January 2009OSC Building Services v Interior Dimensions Contracts [2009] EWHC 248This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary Courts won’t be too pedantic or literal when it comes to deciding whether a Referral Notice goes beyond the bounds of the “dispute” identified in the Notice of Adjudication. The Hon. Mr Justice Ramsey BACKGROUND Interior Dimensions Contracts (“IDC”), the main contractor on a medical centre project, engaged OSC Building Services (“OSC”) to carry out certain drainage and site access sub-contract works. As the original sub-contract was for a limited scope of works, it did not contain adjudication provisions or provide for interim payments, but provided for a final account after completion of the works. The works were completed in July 2007. A month before, OSC submitted payment...
-
19th December 2008Euro Construction Scaffolding Ltd v SLLB Construction Ltd [2008] EWHC 3160 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary Courts and adjudicators alike are encouraged to examine critically assertions that adjudicators lack jurisdiction. In this case the defendant argued that the adjudicator had had no jurisdiction because the contract was not a contract in writing for the purposes of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. The court held that the defendant had no real prospect of establishing this and accordingly enforced the adjudicator’s award. Mr Justice Akenhead, Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court BACKGROUND In May 2006, SLLB engaged Euro under a written contract to provide scaffolding to a house (“the May Contract”). SLLB paid for these works in September 2007. ...
-
11th December 2008Walter Lilly & Co Ltd v DMW Developments Ltd [2008] EWHC 3139 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary Either party may seek a final determination of the issues decided by an adjudicator (whose decision is temporarily binding) in the TCC. Mr Justice Coulson, Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court BACKGROUND DMW engaged Walter Lilly to build a property in Earl’s Court, several rooms of which were required under the contract to be fitted with American Black Walnut natural timber veneer (“the veneer”). A dispute arose when the veneer faded, leading DMW to withhold approximately £90,000 from Walter Lilly. The dispute was referred to adjudication, and the Adjudicator concluded that the fading was caused by natural light and constituted a breach of contract by Walter Lilly. ...
-
11th December 2008Gipping Construction Ltd v Eaves Ltd [2008] EWHC 3134 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary This case shows that failure by an adjudicator to conduct a site inspection will not necessarily give rise to a breach of natural justice, and sets out some general principles relevant to applications for an extension of time to pay a judgment sum and the meaning of indemnity costs when seeking summary enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision. Mr Justice Akenhead, Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court BACKGROUND Eaves Limited (“Eaves”) employed Gipping Construction Limited (“Gipping”) to build two timber-framed bungalows in Ipswich. Disputes arose over whether the two bungalows were complete and free from defects and whether, and if so, what, sums were due to Gipping. ...
-
10th December 2008Air Design (Kent) Ltd v Deerglen (Jersey) Ltd [2008] EWHC 3047 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary There may be cases where the substance of the dispute which the Adjudicator has been asked to decide overlaps with the question whether the Adjudicator has jurisdiction, such that in deciding the substance of the dispute referred to him, the Adjudicator necessarily has to decide whether he has jurisdiction. In such cases, provided that on analysis there exists a dispute capable of being referred to adjudication, his jurisdiction as decided by him cannot be challenged merely because it transpires that the Adjudicator has answered that necessary question incorrectly: his conclusion on the question and thus on his own jurisdiction will be upheld. Mr Justice Akenhead, Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court BACKGROUND Deerglen...
-
9th December 2008Westwood Structural Services Ltd v Blyth Wood Park Management Company Ltd [2008] EWHC 3138 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary The Court has suggested that an employer may not be able to avoid payment under an adjudicator’s award on the basis of a later determination of contract. Mr Justice Coulson, Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court BACKGROUND Blyth Wood Park Management Company (“Blyth Wood”) engaged Westwood Structural Services (“WSS”) under a JCT Minor Works Form 1998 (“the contract”) to carry out works at Blyth Wood Park. Clause D7 of the contract required the parties to comply with a decision of the Adjudicator. Clause 7.2.3 provided that upon determination of the contract Blyth Wood would not be bound to make any further payment that may be due under the contract until...
-
8th December 2008PT Building v ROK Build Ltd [2008] EWHC 3434This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary A party who has elected to treat an adjudicator’s decision as binding for one purpose cannot at the same time claim that it is invalid for another purpose. Mr Justice Ramsey, Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court BACKGROUND ROK engaged PTB to carry out works in Council-owned properties in Harlow. PTB claimed ROK had not paid, or paid late, certain payment applications and issued a notice of adjudication. ROK contended that there was no dispute and said that PTB’s works were over-valued, so PTB issued a second notice of adjudication. An adjudicator was appointed, to whom PTB issued a referral notice. ROK challenged the appointment, claiming there was no dispute and the referral...