- 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.
-
13th November 2012Vertase FLI Ltd v Squibb Group Ltd [2012] EWHC 3194This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary (1) Where an adjudicator has determined an issue in dispute between the parties, the adjudicator is not then entitled to reconsider the same issue in a separate adjudication. (2) To the extent that the subsequent decision relies upon the adjudicator’s change of mind in relation to an issue he decided in the earlier adjudication, the subsequent decision will be unenforceable. In this case, the issue of whether the main contractor was entitled to liquidated damages from his sub-contractor where he had not incurred an equivalent liability to the Employer arose in two separate adjudications and the adjudicator’s change of mind on the issue in the second adjudication rendered that decision unenforceable. Technology and Construction...
-
8th November 2012Lidl UK GmbH v R G Carter Colchester Ltd [2012] EWHC 3138This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary(1) The scope of the dispute referred to an adjudicator is a question of the construction of the documents and the impression they give. (2) Where an additional question, outside the scope of the dispute, is answered by an adjudicator, that part of the decision can be severed provided that the reasoning giving rise to it does not form an integral part of the decision as a whole. In this case, the additional issue addressed by the adjudicator was able to be severed leaving the remainder of the decision enforceable. (3) In order for a breach of natural justice to invalidate a decision it must be sufficiently material to the decision so as to taint the decision as a whole. There was no material breach of natural justice in this case as the...
-
23rd October 2012P C Harrington Contractors Ltd v Systech International Limited [2012] EWCA Civ 1371This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary Where, in an adjudication governed by the Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998, an adjudicator’s decision is held to be unenforceable because he has failed to follow the rules of natural justice, the adjudicator will not, subject to any provisions in his contract of engagement which expressly provide to the contrary, be entitled to payment of his fees. Court of Appeal, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Davis and Lord Justice Treacy Background PC Harrington Contractors Limited (“PCH”) was a contractor employed to carry out works at three projects, namely Wembley Stadium, King’s Waterfront, Liverpool and Kingsfield Hospital, Mansfield. It engaged Tyroddy Construction Limited (“Tyroddy”)...
-
10th October 2012Greentherm Mechanical Services Limited v KDJ Developments Limited [2012] EWHC 3525 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary Where the parties’ submissions were not always consistent or easy to read, and ranged over a number of topics relating to the subcontract, the documents relied on as notices and the provisions of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 as amended by the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (the “Act”), the Adjudicator could not be said to have failed either to comply with natural justice or, in this context, to have exceeded his jurisdiction on the basis that there was a clear agreed position between the parties and that he had proceeded in a way contrary to that position. Additionally, to the extent that there was anything in his decision which was inconsistent with a case which...
-
8th October 2012Alstom Power Ltd v Somi Impianti SRL [2012] EWHC 2644This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary In the case, the Court decided that, SOMI (the Defendant) had to make the written declaration requested by Alstom (the Claimant). This declaration stated that all equipment and materials required for the execution and completion of the subcontracted works; including goods, materials, plant and equipment brought to the site by the Defendant whether owned, leased or hired by Defendant are deemed to be the property of the Claimant. Furthermore, the declaration clarified that the Defendant is not entitled to remove such items from the site. Technology and Construction Court, Queen’s Bench Division, The Hon Mr Justice Akenhead Background Alstom Power Limited (“Alstom”) was engaged as main contractor by RWE Npower plc (“RWE”)...
-
28th September 2012Clark Electrical Ltd v JMD Developments (UK) Ltd [2012] EWHC 2627This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary If two people agree to submit a dispute to a third person, they confer jurisdiction on that person to determine the dispute. Whether a party has agreed to confer jurisdiction on such third person is a question of fact. Where, as here, the agreement is said to derive from correspondence, the Court must construe the correspondence in accordance with the ordinary canons of construction to determine whether there has been a submission. In the present case it was impossible to interpret an e-mail sent by the defendant to the Adjudicator as a submission to the jurisdiction of the adjudicator in the full sense. Nor did payment of an appointment fee by the defendant to the adjudicator have that effect. Technology and Construction Court, His Honour...
-
28th August 2012WSP CEL Limited v Dalkia Utilities Services Plc [2012] EWHC 2428This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary In this case, the Court decided that the effect of an agreement entered into by the parties setting out a procedure for dealing with a dispute concerning the validity and value of claims incorporated into a final account was to give an adjudicator jurisdiction to make a binding ruling on his own jurisdiction. Even if that was wrong the parties had in their exchanges at the beginning of the adjudication made an ad hoc agreement giving the adjudicator the authority to make a binding decision on his jurisdiction. Further, even if the adjudicator had no authority to determine his own jurisdiction he had in any event plainly been right in holding that he did have jurisdiction to determine the claims in question. Technology and Construction...
-
12th July 2012Beck Interiors Ltd v Classic Decorative Finishing Ltd [2012] EWHC 1956 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary A losing party in adjudication will not be permitted to set-off against the award sums allegedly due to it from the winning party, unless: there is an express provision for such a set-off in the contract; or the adjudicator did not order immediate payment but instead gave a declaration as to the proper operation of the contract or ordered that the sum due should be paid but only as part of and pursuant to the existing contract machinery. In this case, there could not in any event be a set-off since, applying the rules of equitable set-off, the cross-claim was not sufficiently closely connected to the claim for the enforcement of the award. Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Coulson Background In February 2011 Beck Interiors Limited...