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.

  • 27th March 2008
    Enterprise Managed Services Ltd v East Midland Contracting Ltd [2008] EWHC 727 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes A provision preventing any action or proceeding other than adjudication before the project was certified practically complete was supposedly breached when one party brought court proceedings to reverse the decision of an adjudicator.  As well as again showing its aim to give effect to what it sees as the intentions of the parties to an inadequate agreement, the court showed that the failure to provide certificates in line with an agreement need not prevent the satisfaction of an obligation for certification and so did not prevent the proceedings to attempt to reverse the adjudicator’s decision. His Honour Judge Stephen Davies – Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court Background The claimant issued proceedings...
  • 14th March 2008
    London Underground Ltd v Metronet Rail BCV Ltd [2008] EWHC 502 (TCC)
  • 13th March 2008
    Edenbooth Ltd v Cre8 Developments Ltd [2008] EWHC 570 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes The courts recognise that there is pressure on parties to a dispute to produce submissions in adjudications within short spaces of time, however, this is necessary for an Adjudicator to give a quick decision, and so is not an adequate basis to challenge an adjudication decision on the grounds of unfairness. Mr Justice Coulson  – Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court Background The defendant, a development company, engaged the claimant to carry out groundworks and drainage works to two properties owned by two of the defendant’s directors.  This was duly done.  A dispute arose in relation to whether further payment for the works was required and the claimant referred the dispute to adjudication. ...
  • 27th February 2008
    Cantillon Ltd v Urvasco Ltd [2008] EWHC 282 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Where an adjudicator’s decision simultaneously addresses two or more issues, one of which has been arrived at within jurisdiction and the rules of natural justice, and one or more of which has been arrived at outside jurisdiction and/or the rules of natural justice, the court will in certain circumstances allow the decision to be severed to allow a part of it to be enforced. Technology and Construction Court, Akenhead J Background The defendant (“Urvasco”) engaged the claimant (“Cantillon”) to carry out demolition, piling and other works pursuant to a JCT Standard Form of Contract Private Without Quantities 1998 edition.  Disputes arose between the parties concerning Cantillon’s claimed entitlement to an...
  • 20th February 2008
    Reinwood Ltd v L Brown & Sons Ltd [2008] UKHL 12
  • 6th February 2008
    Multiplex Construction Ltd v Cleveland Bridge Ltd No1 [2008] EWCA Civ 133
  • 19th January 2008
    Dorchester Hotel Ltd v Vivid Interiors Ltd [2009] EWHC 70
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-lawnow.com/adjudication SUMMARY The TCC has jurisdiction to intervene in ongoing adjudications to prevent breaches of natural justice, but should use this jurisdiction extremely sparingly and only in clear-cut cases.  The mere use of “ambush” tactics will not justify such intervention. Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Coulson BACKGROUND The Dorchester engaged Vivid to refurbish its hotel.  In March 2008, 6 months after completion, Vivid produced a draft final account in the approximate gross sum of £4.39m, with further documentation to follow.  Documents were provided piecemeal between May and October, changing the sum.  The sum had changed again on 12 December, when Vivid commenced adjudication proceedings in respect of the final account. ...
  • 18th December 2007
    Amber Construction Services Ltd v London Interspace HG Ltd [2007] EWHC 3042 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Where a party loses an adjudication and has no basis for resisting enforcement of that decision, it may be penalised on costs if that party fails to adhere to the decision and intimates that it intends to challenge the adjudicator’s decision or enforcement proceedings. Mr. Justice Akenhead – Technology and Construction Court Background Amber obtained an adjudicator’s decision against London Interspace. London Interspace did not pay the sum that the adjudicator decided it owed to Amber. Amber’s lawyers wrote to London Interspace stating that if the sum was not paid without delay Amber would commence enforcement proceedings. London Interspace’s lawyers wrote back saying that they had a valid jurisdictional defence to...
  • 30th November 2007
    PC Harrington Contractors Ltd v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd [2007] EWHC 2833 (TCC)
  • 29th November 2007
    Williams (Mrs Sandra) t/a Sanclair Construction v Abdul Noor t/a India Kitchen [2007]
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Whether an adjudication is brought by the wrong party or whether is it brought by the right party but in the wrong name is a question of fact. His Honour Judge Hickinbottom – Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court Background The parties entered into an agreement under which the claimant agreed to carry out building works at a take away restaurant to convert it into a seated dining restaurant.  The agreement included a provision allowing either party to refer disputes to adjudication and the adjudication provisions would be those set out in the Scheme for Construction Contracts.  The adjudicator would be appointed by the President of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators.  However, the adjudicator was...