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.

  • 8th February 2007
    Multiplex Construction (UK) Ltd v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd [2007] EWHC 236 (TCC)
  • 1st February 2007
    HG Construction Ltd v Ashwell Homes (East Anglia) Ltd. [2007] EWHC 144 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes This case reiterates the principle that an adjudicator’s decision may not be overruled by a subsequent adjudicator.  To the extent that an adjudicator purports to decide any dispute that has already been decided by an earlier adjudicator, the later adjudicator’s decision will not be binding. Mr Justice Ramsey – Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court Ashwell was the employer and HG Construction the contractor under a JCT contract relating to a new housing development.  Various disputes arising between the parties were referred to adjudication.  In Adjudication No.1, the adjudicator decided that the liquidated and ascertained damages (“LADs”) provisions in the contract were valid...
  • 1st February 2007
    Aveat Heating Ltd v Jerram Falkus Construction Ltd [2007] EWHC 131 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes The adjudication provisions of the GC/Works sub-contract are invalid because they are non-compliant with the HGCRA.  The offending clause in the GC/Works sub-contract provided that the adjudicator’s decision would be valid if issued after the time allowed.His Honour Judge Havery QC – Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court This case dealt with an application for summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator’s decision.  Judge Havery QC held that the following term in the contract, which incorporated the GC/Works sub-contract conditions, was non-compliant with the HGCRA: “The adjudicator’s decision shall nevertheless be valid if issued after the time allowed…”.  For that reason,...
  • 31st January 2007
    Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd No 2 [2007] EWHC 145 (TCC)
  • 30th January 2007
    Lead Technical Services Ltd v CMS Medical Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 316
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes There are exceptional cases where adjudicators’ decisions are not readily enforced by the courts. These include where it is appears that the wrong body appointed the adjudicator, or the adjudicator decided a dispute under the wrong construction contract. In Lead Technical Services Ltd v CMS Medical Ltd a consulting engineer brought an adjudication to recover around £84K in fees that were allegedly owing. The engineer was successful in the adjudication, and sought to enforce the adjudicator’s decision by way of a summary judgment application. Summary judgment (which is the usual vehicle for enforcing adjudicators’ decisions) will be granted where the court is of the view that the defendant has no real prospect of defending the...
  • 19th January 2007
    Bennett (Electrical) Services Limited v Inviron Limited [2007] EWHC 49 (QB)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes HH Judge Havery QC – Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court A dispute arose between Bennett, an electrical contractor and its mechanical and electrical contractor, Inviron.  The parties went to adjudication and a decision was made in Bennett’s favour.  Bennett sought to enforce the adjudicator’s decision.  Inviron opposed the enforcement proceedings on the following grounds:(1) There was no contact for the purposes of s107 of HGCRA.  There was only a letter of intent which was ‘subject to contract’; and (2) the adjudicator had no jurisdiction since the issue of jurisdiction had been determined in an earlier adjudication.HHJ Wilcox dealt with the first argument. ...
  • 19th January 2007
    Epping Electrical Company Ltd v Briggs & Forrester (Plumbing Services) Ltd [2007] EWHC 4 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Where a contractual adjudication procedure is non-compliant with the HGCRA, the entire contractual procedure will be deemed non-compliant and the statutory adjudication scheme will apply instead. The CIC adjudication procedure was held to be non-compliant with the HGCRA and therefore invalid.His Honour Judge Havery QC – Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court Background A dispute arising between the parties was referred to adjudication, conducted in accordance with the Construction Industry Council (“CIC”) procedure current at the time of the appointment.  The 28-day period in which the adjudicator was required to reach a decision expired on 1 November.  The deadline was extended to 14 November...
  • 10th January 2007
    Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Mott Macdonald Ltd [2007] EWHC 20 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes This case concerned the breadth of the dispute that had arisen between the parties in relation to a right to access ‘all pertinent records’.  It was unsuccessfully contended by Mott that the adjudication notice was drafted too broadly and that the adjudicator did not have the jurisdiction to decide the dispute that had been referred by the claimant to him. Although Multiplex succeeded on the jurisdictional point, the court found that there was no basis on the evidence before it to hold that Mott had not complied with the adjudicator’s decision, therefore it refused to grant summary judgment on Multiplex’s claims for specific performance, an injunction and/or damages.Mr Justice Jackson – Queen’s Bench Division,...
  • 4th January 2007
    Humes Building Contracts v Charlotte Homes (Surrey) [2007]
  • 21st December 2006
    Cubitt Building & Interiors Ltd v Fleetglade Ltd [2006] EWHC 3413 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes This case provides a reminder that where the contractual adjudication framework is compliant with the HGCRA, the contract will govern the adjudication rather than the legislation.  The court interpreted the contractual provisions relating to timetabling in a sensible and commercial way to reach the conclusion that the adjudicator had been validly appointed even though the referral notice was served just outside the seven-day period.  Further, a decision reached within the agreed extended date (just), but only communicated to the parties twelve hours later and after expiry of that period was held to have been communicated ‘forthwith’.  The adjudicator’s decision was upheld.His Honour Judge Coulson QC – Queen’s...