- 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 April 2010Yuanda (UK) Co Ltd v WW Gear Construction Ltd [2010] EWHC 720 (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 adjudication provisions in a contract state that the referring party will pay the legal fees of both parties and the adjudicator, irrespective of whether or not it wins or loses, then the provisions will be struck down and replaced by the whole of Part I of the Scheme for Construction Contracts (the “Scheme”). Where an adjudication clause provides for joinder of the members of the professional team in a multi-party dispute, then the Court will give effect to the provision (and not replace it with the Scheme) by limiting its application to the situation where there is an issue that needs to be resolved against the member of the professional team as well as against the contractor, but will not allow a referral to be...
-
18th March 2010(1) William Hare v Shepherd Construction; (2) CR Reynolds (Construction) v Shepherd Construction [2010] EWCA Civ 283
-
16th March 2010(1) Mentmore Towers Ltd (2) Good Start Ltd (3) Anglo Swiss Holdings Ltd v Packman Lucas Ltd [2010] EWHC 457 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Summary Where a referral to adjudication is unreasonable or oppressive, the Court will be willing to grant an injunction to prevent any further steps in the adjudication. The principles that the Court will apply when deciding whether or not a referral is oppressive will be the principles that apply to litigation, having due regard to all the facts of the case. Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart Background The three defendants (collectively “Mentmore”) were Jersey-registered companies, owned by one family trust, formed to redevelop three upmarket properties: two properties in Piccadilly, including the former Naval and Military Club (the “In and Out”), and a stately home in Buckinghamshire. ...
-
26th February 2010SG South v Swan Yard (Cirencester) [2010] EWHC 376 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary Where an adjudicator erroneously finds that he has jurisdiction in relation to a dispute, notwithstanding the fact that there is no written contract between the parties, then exchanges in the adjudication and/or enforcement proceedings where the existence of a contract otherwise than in writing is alleged and not rebutted by the responding party can constitute a written contract and thus serve to establish the necessary jurisdiction. Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Coulson Background The claimant contractor (“South”) sought to enforce an adjudicator’s award for £98k by way of summary judgment against the defendant employer (“Swan Yard”). Swan Yard resisted enforcement. ...
-
25th February 2010Speymill Contracts v Eric Baskind [2010] EWCA Civ 120This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Summary Where there is an arguable case that an adjudicator’s decision was procured through fraud, and that the fraud either was not or could not have been referred to during the adjudication, then the decision will not be enforceable. However, there is a distinction between an adjudication taking place in which an allegation of fraud is made (and can be made), and where a fraud only comes to light after an adjudication has taken place. In the latter case, fraud (or a strong allegation of fraud) could provide a basis for refusing to enforce an adjudicator’s decision. In the former, it will not. Court of Appeal Facts The respondent in the Court of Appeal (“Mr Baskind”) engaged the claimant (“Speymill”)...
-
24th February 2010AMEC Group v Thames Water Utilities [2010] EWHC 419 (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 an adjudication relates to disputes arising in connection with works carried out under works packages issued under a Framework Agreement, an adjudicator appointed under the Framework Agreement will have jurisdiction to decide those disputes when the claim and counter-claim refer to its provisions. (b) Where second round submissions are served late in the adjudication process, there is neither an obligation on the adjudicator to consider them in detail, nor a breach of the rules of natural justice if he does not do so. (c) The requirement for an adjudicator to “respond to the issues” does not impose upon an adjudicator an obligation to provide an answer to each and every issue that may be raised in the parties'...
-
22nd February 2010Forest Heath District Council v ISG Jackson Limited [2010] EWHC 322 (TCC)
-
11th February 2010GPS Marine Contractors v Ringway Infrastructure Services [2010] EWHC 283 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes SUMMARY (1) A general reservation in relation to the jurisdiction of the adjudicator was sufficient to preserve the respondent’s rights to resist enforcement of the adjudicator’s award on grounds of lack of jurisdiction. (2) Where the parties to an adjudication disagree as to whether or not a compromise or withdrawal of the dispute had taken place before the dispute was referred, then, where the resolution of the disagreement will involve the adducement of oral evidence, an application to enforce the adjudicator’s decision by way of summary judgment will not be granted. (3) An agreement between the parties that an adjudicator had made an error of fact or law in his decision will not mean that the adjudicator’s decision...