- 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.
-
29th January 2010Banner Holdings v Colchester Borough Council [2010] EWHC 139 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes SUMMARY Provisions of a construction contract that limit the right of the adjudicator to vary or overrule a decision to terminate will fall foul of s.108 of the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act (“the Act”). In such a case, the adjudication provisions of Part I of the Scheme for Construction Contracts (“the Scheme”) will be implied into the contract between the parties. The Scheme will be implied in its entirety, rather than in a piecemeal manner, even if only a few of the adjudication provisions in the contract fail to comply with the Act. Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Coulson Background Banner Holdings Ltd (“Banner”) was engaged by Colchester Borough Council (“CBC”)...
-
22nd January 2010ROK Building Limited v Celtic Composting Systems [2010] EWHC 66 (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 the Court held that trying to argue that an adjudicator had failed to apply the rules of natural justice on the basis that the weight of evidence was such that no reasonable adjudicator could have come to the decision he reached was “an almost pointless exercise” (given the wide jurisdiction given to the adjudicator to make a decision which is wrong in fact and/or law). The Court also held that the slip rule in the CIC Model Adjudication Procedure did not give the adjudicator the power to correct his decision so as to wholly reconsider and re-draft substantive parts of it and effectively change his mind on material points of principle. Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Akenhead Background This...
-
21st January 2010Supablast v Story Rail Limited [2010] EWHC 56 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary This case addressed issues of jurisdiction in the context of adjudication decision enforcement proceedings where there are or may be disputes arising under two contracts between the parties that are referred to a single adjudicator. The Court held that the defendant had no real prospect of successfully arguing that there were two contracts, or of resisting an argument that it was estopped from so arguing. Further, the adjudicator had had jurisdiction to decide whether there were one or two contracts. Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Akenhead Background Story Rail Ltd (“Story”) was engaged by Network Rail in 2008 to carry out refurbishment works on a railway viaduct in St. Helens. Story invited...
-
23rd December 2009RWE NPower v Alstom Power [2009] EWHC B40 (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 a notice of adjudication under Part 1 of the Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998 (“the Scheme”) purported to refer claims under a single contract to adjudication, the fact that some of the claims actually arose under another contract did not invalidate the notice to refer. (b) In deciding whether the claims referred constituted a single dispute or more than one dispute, a benevolent interpretation of the notice of adjudication should be adopted. Where the elements of a dispute were linked, that was a single dispute. (c) “Without prejudice” privilege attached to the content of the exchanges of a negotiation and not to the fact that the negotiation had taken...
-
22nd December 2009C&E Jacques Partnership v Ensign Contractors Limited [2009] EWHC 3383 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-lawnow.com/adjudication SUMMARY An adjudicator must consider defences properly put forward by a respondent in adjudication. However, it is within an adjudicator's jurisdiction to decide what evidence is admissible and what evidence is helpful in the determination of the dispute referred to that adjudicator. If, within jurisdiction, the adjudicator decides that certain evidence is inadmissible, that will rarely (if ever) amount to a breach of the rules of natural justice. The probable inability of a referring party to repay sums awarded in an adjudicator’s decision following final resolution of the dispute may render it appropriate to grant a stay of execution. It is open to the Court to impose such a stay in relation to part of the judgment sum. On the facts of this case there was a prima...
-
9th December 2009Anglo Swiss & Good Start v Packman Limited [2009] EWHC 3212 (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 the Court held that to allow the claimant to continue with proceedings which, if successful, would have the effect of reversing in whole or in part a prior adjudication award without having first paid the amount of such an award would seriously undermine the purpose of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 ("the Construction Act"). The Court also stayed the proceedings until the claimants had provided security for the costs of the action. However, the Court declined to order a stay of proceedings pending compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Construction and Engineering Disputes because there had already been an exchange of information and a discussion of the issues during the adjudication. Technology...