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.

  • 12th December 2013
    Alexander & Law Ltd v Coveside (21BPR) Ltd EWHC 3949 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-lawnow.com/adjudication Judgment date: 12.12. 2013 SUMMARY (1) The existence of a Winding-Up Petition in relation to a company in whose favour an adjudication award had been issued is not an automatic defence to an application for summary judgment enforcing the award. (2) The court dealing with the application for summary judgment will not reach a decision in advance of the hearing of the Winding-Up Petition as to whether or not the company is insolvent. (3) In this case the Court found that the financial condition of the Claimant showed that there was a high risk that the Claimant would be unable to repay the amount of the Adjudicator’s award at the time when any repayment would be due to be made, and that the financial condition of the Claimant was not due in any significant part to...
  • 6th December 2013
    J G Walker Groundworks Ltd v Priory Homes (East) Ltd [2013] EWHC 3723 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-lawnow.com/adjudication Judgment date: 6.12.2013 SUMMARY (1) It is the Notice of Intention to Refer a Dispute to Adjudication (“Notice of Adjudication”), as opposed to the Referral Notice, that defines the scope of the referral (paragraph 1 of Part I of the Scheme for Construction Contracts). Therefore, in a case in which the Notice of Adjudication mentions alleged agreed variations to the works, the Adjudicator acts within his jurisdiction when he takes into account the value of the additional work carried out by the Claimant even if the Referral Notice claims sums due under “the Contract”, defined as the original contract without the variations. (2) Where a Notice of Adjudication stated that the dispute concerned the sum due from one party to the other and whether...
  • 29th November 2013
    Aspect Contracts (Asbestos) Limited v Higgins Construction Plc [2013] EWCA Civ 1541
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Summary There is an implied term in a contract to which the Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998 (the “Scheme”) applies that the unsuccessful party to an adjudication would be entitled to have the dispute finally determined by legal proceedings and, if successful, to recover the money it had paid.  The cause of action for the recovery of such payment accrues on the date that the payment was made.  In this case, therefore, the unsuccessful party had six years from the date of payment to commence legal proceedings to recover the amount which it had paid. The successful referring party in the adjudication who considers that the adjudicator awarded too little does not benefit from the extended time...
  • 18th November 2013
    Westshield Limited v Mr David Whitehouse and Mrs Lisa Whitehouse [2013] 3576 EWHC (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-lawnow.com/adjudication Judgment date: 18.11.2013 SUMMARY The fact that the claimant in an adjudication had entered into a Company Voluntary Arrangement (“CVA”) was not a bar to adjudication as such. Where, however, the CVA provided for an account to be taken of mutual credits and debts as between the parties with only the net amount (if any) admitted to proof in the CVA, the Court would not give summary judgment for the amount of the adjudicator’s award. Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Akenhead  BACKGROUND In August 2007, Mr and Mrs Whitehouse employed Westshield to carry out substructure works to their house for a contract sum of £262,074.07. The works were due to complete by 18 January 2008 but overran and completed around April 2009. The contract...
  • 11th November 2013
    Roe Brickwork Limited v Wates Construction Limited [2013] EWHC 3417 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary An adjudicator had not breached the rules of natural justice or acted outside his jurisdiction when he assessed the value of the claims on a different basis from that argued by the parties, as he had simply calculated the sums owed to the claimant in a ‘slightly different way’.  Even if this was wrong, the alleged breach of natural justice was not material as it had no effect on the quantum of the claim that was adverse to the defendant’s position. Technology and Construction Court Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart background Wates Construction Ltd (‘Wates’) was the main contractor for the construction of three blocks of flats on an estate in Tower Hamlets, London. Wates appointed Roe Brickwork Ltd (‘Roe...
  • 28th October 2013
    Brims Construction v A2M Development Limited EWHC 3262 (TCC)
    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 it was found that a Notice of Adjudication was sufficiently broadly drafted to give the Adjudicator jurisdiction to decide as he did and that in any event the defendant had waived its right to raise a jurisdictional Further, in asking parties to make submissions on a point, a non-legally qualified adjudicator was not impliedly excluding parties from producing further evidence and therefore his conduct could not amount to a material breach of natural justice. Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Akenhead background A2M Developments Ltd (“A2M”) contracted with Brims Construction Ltd (“Brims”) in October 2012 for Brims to construct a new care home. The contract was the JCT 2011 form of Intermediate...
  • 21st October 2013
    Glendalough Associated SA v Harris Calnan Construction Co Ltd EWHC 3142 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary (1) Section 107(5) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (as it stood prior to amendments introduced by the Local Democracy Economic Development and Construction Act 2009) (‘the Act’) is engaged where a referral notice does not refer to an agreement clearly in writing and is capable of being construed as an assertion of an agreement made otherwise than in writing — even if the words could also be construed as describing a written agreement. (2) For there to be a valid construction contract within the meaning of section 107 there must be an agreement on at least: the parties, the scope of the work, the price (or a sufficiently certain method of ascertaining the price) and time. Technology and Construction...
  • 11th October 2013
    National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside v AEW Architects and Designers Limited EWHC 3025 (TCC)
  • 4th October 2013
    Pioneer Cladding v John Graham Construction Limited [2013] EWHC 2954 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary A clause in a sub-contract which provided that any sum awarded by an adjudicator in favour of the sub-contractor must be paid into an escrow account was invalid and unenforceable as being in breach of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (“the Act”). (2) The same applied to a clause which provided that the adjudicator’s fees were to be borne by the party referring the dispute to adjudication. (3) A stay of execution of a judgment enforcing an adjudicator’s decision was granted where, although the claimant’s financial position was no worse at the date of the judgment than it was at the date when the contract had been made, the claimant had misled the defendant into thinking that they were a...
  • 3rd October 2013
    CG Group Limited v Breyer Group PLC [2013] EWHC 2959 (TCC)