- 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.
-
7th April 2011Lanes v Galliford Try No 2 [2011] EWHC 1234 (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 requiring the referring party to send the referral documents to the adjudicator and other side within 2 days of the appointment of the adjudicator meant that the documents had to be dispatched within 2 days, not received within 2 days; (2) The fact that some of the documents were dispatched up to 2 hours after the deadline did not mean that service had been ineffective - this was not a case where it could be said that service of the referral documents was so late as merit impeachment of the adjudication proceedings. Technology and Construction Court, Akenhead J Background The claimant sub-contractor (“Lanes”) was employed by the defendant main contractor (“Galliford”) to carry out certain works relating...
-
31st March 2011Durham County Council v Jeremy Kendall (Trading as HLB Architects) [2011] EWHC 780 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-lawnow.com/adjudication SUMMARY (1) The requirements of s107 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (“HGCRA”) that the contract must be in writing might be satisfied even if a contract has been negotiated on a written basis with relatively vestigial terms (for example: “Please go ahead on the basis of your tender”). (2) Acceptance of an offer did not have to be recorded in writing if that acceptance did not contain any of the terms of the contract (e.g. acceptance by conduct). (3) Where a contract contains conditions that have to be fulfilled to bring certain obligations under the contract into effect, the fulfilment of those conditions did not have to be evidenced in writing. (4) Where the Notice of Adjudication and Referral Notice make reference...
-
25th March 2011PC Harrington Contractors v Tyroddy Construction [2011] EWHC 813 (TCC)Harrington engaged Tyroddy as a sub-contractor on three projects. This case dealt with one project and in so doing disposed of the other issues on the other two cases. Tyroddy claimed the release of retention. There was no express term dealing with its release under the sub-contract. It went to adjudication seeking the release of that retention. Harrington response in the adjudication was that the entire valuation of Tyroddy's work was presently no more than an 'on account' assessment. Until the final account had been ascertained any amount that was owed to Tyroddy by way of retention had not therefore been established and could not become due. Harrington said that it had established that Tyroddy had been overpaid to the tune of £225,085.97. Within its calculations it included a cross-claim. Harrington said that if, as a matter of taking proper account between...
-
18th February 2011Ellis Building Contractors Limited v Vincent Goldstein [2011] EWHC 269 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-lawnow.com/adjudication Judgment date: 18 February 2011 SUMMARY (1) Without prejudice communications should not be deployed in adjudication proceedings. (2) Although a "without prejudice" letter was deployed in the instant case, its deployment did not give rise to a legitimate fear that the adjudicator might not have been impartial. (3) Where an issue is clearly and properly before an adjudicator, the fact that a party to the adjudication chooses not to address that issue head-on does not entitle that party to challenge the enforceability of the decision on the ground that the adjudicator has, in breach of the rules of natural justice, decided the case on a basis that has not been argued by either side. Technology and Construction Court, Akenhead JBACKGROUND Mr Goldstein employed Ellis...
-
26th January 2011C N Associates v Holbeton Ltd [2011] EWHC 43 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes SUMMARY (a) Where it was clear from all the circumstances that the responding party to an adjudication had reserved it rights with regards to the jurisdiction of the adjudicator, then the reservation would be effective notwithstanding the fact that there was no express reservation in terms. (b) If an adjudicator is given the power by the parties to make a decision as to his own jurisdiction, then in order to be effective his decision on that issue must be set out in terms. Technology and Construction Court, Akenhead J Background In March 2004 the claimant (“CNA”) was engaged by Bright Services Ltd (“BSL”) to act as project manager for works to a substantial domestic property in London pursuant to a contract...
-
17th January 2011Redwing Construction v Charles Wishart [2011] EWHC 19 (TCC)
-
22nd December 2010Walter Llewellyn & Rok v Excell Brickwork [2010] EWHC 3415 (TCC)
-
22nd December 2010Redwing Construction Ltd v Charles Wishart [2010] EWHC 3366 (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 previous adjudicator has decided an issue outside his jurisdiction, it does not preclude a subsequent adjudicator deciding upon the same point at a later date. (2) Where an adjudicator in a contractual adjudication makes an obvious mistake which is merely clerical or arithmetical in nature then he may be able to make use of an implied term that permits him to correct the mistake provided that he does so within a reasonable time of handing down his decision. Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Akenhead Background Redwing Construction Limited (“Redwing”) was employed as a contractor by Mr Wishart to refurbish a domestic property in London, under the standard JCT Prime Cost Building Contract form (2006...
-
21st December 2010Irvin v RobertsonPart 8 proceedings to seek a declaration that the parties had entered into a construction contract as defined in section 104 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 and that such a contract was in writing as defined within section 104 of the Act. Further and in the alternative a declaration was sought that in any event the parties had agreed that any dispute could be referred to adjudication under the Defendant's adjudication procedure. Held: That there was no legal basis for a freestanding agreement to adjudicate and that the parties had not concluded a contract. The parties were not ad idem on essential issues of design responsibility, price and whether or not there was to be a guaranteed maximum price for the project.