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.

  • 23rd May 2013
    True Fix Construction Ltd v Apollo Property Services Group Ltd [2013] EWHC 2524
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary (1) In coming to a decision on whether or not to exercise its discretion to stay execution of a judgment enforcing an adjudicator’s decision, the Court has to consider, first of all, the probable inability of a claimant to be able to repay the judgment sum if ordered to do so at the end of a substantive trial or arbitration hearing leading to a final determination.  (2) Where there is a probable inability of the claimant to repay the judgment, if the claimant's financial position is the same or similar to the financial position at the time when the relevant contract was made, or the claimant's financial position is due, either wholly or in part, to the defendant's failure to pay the sums which were awarded in the adjudication, then,...
  • 9th May 2013
    Farrelly (M&E) Building Services v Byrne Brothers (Formwork) Ltd [2013] EWHC 1186
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary (1) A party had not waived any natural justice challenge by failing to draw to the Adjudicator’s attention the matters which it later contended amounted to a breach of the rules of natural justice; (2) for there to be a breach of natural justice it must be shown that the Adjudicator has gone off on a “frolic of his own”; the defendant had no real prospect of doing so on the facts of this case; (3) there is no general obligation on a party seeking enforcement  of an adjudicator’s decision to disclose to the other party confidential information of its financial and business position so that the other party can consider whether there are grounds for applying for a stay of any judgement enforcing the decision. The fact...
  • 8th May 2013
    TSG Building Services Plc v South Anglia Housing Ltd [2013] EWHC 1151
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary Although a dispute comprised three primary strands or issues, it nevertheless constituted one dispute and the Adjudicator therefore had jurisdiction to determine it.  However, on the application of the responding party, the Court granted a declaration that, on a proper interpretation of the contract, the claimant was not entitled to compensation for the non-recovery of overheads and profit which the Adjudicator had awarded in his decision and the Adjudicator was therefore wrong to order it.  But since the Adjudicator had had jurisdiction, his order that the responding party should pay his fees was enforced. Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Akenhead Background TSG Building Services Plc (“TSG”) was contracted...
  • 2nd May 2013
    Muneer Hamid t/a Hamid Properties v Francis Bradshaw Partnership [2013] EWCA Civ 470
  • 9th April 2013
    Willmott Dixon Housing Limited (formerly Inspace Partnerships Limited v Newlon Housing Trust [2013] EWHC 798
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Summary Overview: (1) The referring party had sufficiently complied with an adjudication rule providing for referral of the dispute to the adjudicator within seven days of the notice of adjudication and the adjudicator therefore had jurisdiction. (2)Failure to comply with a requirement of an adjudication rule that the referring party should serve a copy of the referral documents upon the other party at the same time as he served the adjudicator did not mean that the adjudicator had no jurisdiction (3) The fact that an adjudicator was the same adjudicator appointed to deal with multiple adjudications did not have any effect on the adjudicator’s jurisdiction to determine the disputes referred to him in each of those adjudications. Technology and...
  • 28th February 2013
    Berry Piling Systems Limited v Sheer Projects Ltd [2013] EWHC 347
  • 27th February 2013
    Westfields Construction Limited v Clive Lewis [2013] EWHC 376
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary For the purposes of the residential exception in s.106 of the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (the “Act”), whilst the date of the formation of the contract is particularly important in any consideration of any alleged “intention to occupy”, “occupation” is an ongoing process and cannot be tested by reference to a single snapshot in time. Thus the evidence about the position at the date that the contract was made has to be considered in the context of all of the evidence of occupation and intention, both before and after the agreement of the contract. On the facts of this case the defendant had not demonstrated that the residential exception applied. Technology and Construction Court,...
  • 8th February 2013
    AMEC Group Limited v Secretary of State for Defence [2013] EWHC 110
    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 a party had challenged an adjudicator’s decision by referring the dispute to arbitration under the contract. Dissatisfied with the arbitral tribunal’s decision, it then sought permission to appeal the tribunal’s award on a point of law. Permission was refused as the Court did not consider that s69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 had been fulfilled. Specifically, the dispute in question was not of general public importance and the arbitrator’s decision was not obviously wrong or open to serious doubt.  Technology and Construction Court, The Hon Mr Justice Coulson Background Pursuant to a contract dating from March 2000, the Secretary of State for Defence (“SOSD”) engaged AMEC Group Ltd (“AMEC”)...
  • 4th February 2013
    Gibson (Banbridge) Limited v Fermanagh District Council
    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 claim has been submitted and discussions ensue between the contractor and the contract administrator, a reasonable time must be allowed for the contract administrator to prepare a response before it can be concluded that a dispute has arisen. In this case, however, a project manager’s assessment should have been made long before the notice of adjudication was issued and the adjudicator therefore had jurisdiction to decide the claim.(2) Breaches of rules of natural justice or procedural fairness will be material where the Adjudicator has failed to afford to a party a reasonable opportunity to respond to the case being made by the other party. In this case, the period allowed by the Adjudicator to the respondent to respond to...
  • 29th January 2013
    Arcadis UK Limited v May and Baker Limited (t/a Sanofi) [2013] EWHC 87
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary (1) It is not improper for a party to an adjudication to refer a previous adjudicator’s decision to a later adjudicator or for the later adjudicator to consider it. (2) It may be a breach of the rules of natural justice for an adjudicator to decide a dispute on a basis that was not put forward by either party and without allowing the parties to comment. However, the fact that the adjudicator was persuaded that the correct answer lay between two figures put forward by the parties on an evidential basis and decided to split the difference down the middle could not be considered a breach of natural justice. (3) An adjudicator is not required to refer in his decision to every point raised by each party except in so far as it is necessary...