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.

Show all casesprevious 1 2...12 13 141516 17 18...58 59 next

12th September 2011
Witney Town Council v Beam Construction [2011] EWHC 2332 (TCC)

This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-lawnow.com/adjudication Judgment date: 12.09.2011 SUMMARY (1) Where, on a proper analysis, there are two separate and distinct disputes, only one can be referred to one adjudicator unless the parties agree otherwise. Whether there are one or more disputes involves a consideration of the facts. If there is a clear link between two or more arguably separate claims or assertions that may well point to there being one dispute. (2) In this case, there was in essence only a single dispute, that being the sum of money that the contractor was due under the contract. The various issues which the employer had attempted to classify as single disputes were, in fact, simply threads of the overall dispute. In other words the issues of the extension of time, the loss and expense, the value of the variations...

Click here to read more
8th August 2011
PHD Modular Access Services v Seele GmbH

During an adjudication, the seventh between the parties, PHD sought disclosure and pre-claim disclosure under CPR Part 31. Proceedings had to be anticipated and not just be a possibility. There had to be a real prospect that there would be proceedings between the parties. PHD had been successful in its adjudications and there was no indication that Seele intended to take things further and challenge the decision. It would be odd if PHD as the succesful party were considering proceedings to hold on to those decisions where there was no indication that the unsuccessful party was going to chaslleneg them. The judge was not therefore convinced that there was a real prospect of proceedings and that as a matter of discretion it would not yet be appropriate to issue such an order on disclosure.

Click here to read more
21st July 2011
Jerram Falkus v Fenice Investments Inc [2011] EWHC 1935 (TCC)

Hybrid CPR Part7/Part8 procedure. Consideration of conclusivity arguments in regard to the JCT D&B Form 2005. Adjudicator's decision after the submission of the Final Account and Final Statement is conclusive if not challenged within the 28 day period stated in Clause 1.9.4

Click here to read more
13th July 2011
Hyder Consulting v Carillion Construction [2011] EWHC 1810 (TCC)

This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-lawnow.com/adjudication Judgment date: 13 July 2011 SUMMARY (1) It is the decision of the adjudicator (including any findings that are essential components of the decision) that is binding on the parties, not his reasoning. (2) In this case, an adjudicator’s conduct in adopting a methodology for the calculation of his award that was different from those put forward by the parties in their submissions without giving the parties an opportunity to comment on it did not amount to a breach of the rules of natural justice. Both parties had made submissions on the relevant terms of the contract in relation to the calculation and the adjudicator did not rely on any information that the parties had not had an opportunity to consider. Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart.BACKGROUNDIn...

Click here to read more
6th July 2011
Fenice Investments v Jerram Falkus Construction [2011] EWHC 1678 (TCC)

This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-lawnow.com/adjudication Judgment date: 6 July 2011 SUMMARY Where a party had paid the fees of an adjudicator which the adjudicator had ordered should be paid by the other party, he was entitled to recover those fees from that other party provided that they were reasonable. On the facts of this case it could not be argued that the fees were not reasonable.Technology and Construction Court, Judge Waksman Q.C.BACKGROUND Fenice Investments Inc (“Fenice”) employed Jerram Falkus Construction Limited (“Jerram”) as a contractor to build five residential properties, using the JCT design and build standard form. The contract provided that the Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998 (“the Scheme”) would apply if the parties wished...

Click here to read more
6th July 2011
Lanes v Galliford Try [2011] EWHC 1679 (TCC)

Following an adjudicator's decision Part 8 proceedings to challenge the decision and enforcement proceedings were heard together. The decision was claimed by Lanes to be a nullity because; 1) Galliford had previously commenced an adjudication on the same point but had had not pursued it before another adjudicator. Lanes said that there was no entitlement to start again; 2) the decision was also claimed to be a product of apparent bias. The adjudicator had issued "Preliminary Views and Findings of Fact" before the Response had been served. Lanes alleged that this document which looked and read like a decision suggested that the adjudicator had already made up his mind. Much of the preliminary document was reproduced in the decision. Held: The implication of a bar against starting the adjudication again was rejected. The apparent bias argument was however succesful...

Click here to read more
17th June 2011
Urang v Century Investments & Eclipse Hotels [2011] EWHC 1561 (TCC)

This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-lawnow.com/adjudication Judgment Date: 17.06.2011 SUMMARY (1) Where a contract provides for payment of a sum certified as due by an independent third party that is a “sum due” under the contract. In the absence of a withholding notice (and provided the certificate is not invalid by reason of error or irregularity in relation to its issue), the sum certified must be paid by the date specified for payment. (2) The need to issue a withholding notice applies only to sums stated as due in interim certificates. There is no requirement to serve a withholding notice in relation to other claims made by a contractor, whether under a different provision in the contract or for damages. (3) However, an error in this respect made by the Adjudicator in this case was an error in law...

Click here to read more
24th May 2011
Cain Electrical v Richard Cox t/a Pennine Control Systems [2011] EWHC 2681 (TCC)

This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-lawnow.com/adjudication Judgment date: 24 May 2011 SUMMARY (1) The question of the jurisdiction of the Adjudicator was a question for the court. Subject to any argument of election or estoppel (which was not advanced in this case), this question is not determined or circumscribed by what either party may have argued before the Adjudicator. (2) Where, therefore, at the time of the adjudication one of the parties was relying upon terms orally agreed but the parties come to agree, after the Adjudicator has made his decision, that a contract wholly in writing was in force between the parties, the Court will enforce the Adjudicator’s decision.Technology and Construction Court, Judge Havelock-Allan Q.C.BACKGROUNDThe dispute arose from a sub-sub-contract to carry out...

Click here to read more
19th April 2011
CRJ Services Limited v Lanstar Limited [2011] EWHC 972 (TCC)

This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-lawnow.com/adjudication Judgment Date: 19.04.2011 SUMMARY (1) Where a document relevant to the question of whether an adjudicator has jurisdiction is served on an adjudicator but not the other party to the adjudication, this will not necessarily amount to a material breach of the rules of natural justice. (2) A material breach of the rules of natural justice relating to an adjudicator’s investigation as to his jurisdiction will not necessarily render the overall decision invalid. The investigation as to jurisdiction is separate from the substantive decision, not forming part of the enforceable decision. Generally speaking the substantive decision will only be rendered invalid by a material breach of the rules of natural justice relating to the substantive decision. (3) However,...

Click here to read more
19th April 2011
Lanes Group v Galliford Try [2011] EWHC 1035 (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 contract is terminated or brought to an end by the acceptance of a repudiatory breach, an adjudication clause in the contract will survive. (2) Where a contract is a “construction contract” within the meaning of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (“the HGCRA”), the adjudication agreement in the contract cannot be repudiated as such. (3) Where, therefore, a party who had commenced an adjudication considered that the adjudicator appointed by the appointing body suffered from apparent bias, the Court would not, on the basis of arguments as to repudiation of the adjudication agreement, restrain that party from deciding not to serve the referral documentation in that adjudication and commencing...

Click here to read more

Show all casesprevious 1 2...12 13 141516 17 18...58 59 next