- 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.
-
20th November 2007Ledwood Mechanical Engineering Ltd v Whessoe Oil and Gas Ltd [2007] EWHC 2743 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes (a) Where a dispute regarding an interim payment is referred to adjudication under the Scheme for Construction Contracts (the “Scheme”), the adjudicator’s decision must be applied to the interim payment that was originally in dispute and should not be applied to a later interim payment falling due after the adjudication was commenced. (b) The paying party to an adjudication may set off an amount against monies payable to the receiving party pursuant to the adjudicator’s decision only where it follows logically from the adjudicator’s decision that the paying party is entitled to recover that specific amount. Set off will not be permitted where the quantum of the sum that the paying party seeks to set off is disputed. Technology...
-
15th November 2007Harris Calnan Construction Co. Ltd v Ridgewood (Kensington) Ltd [2007] EWHC 2738 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes If a respondent does not reserve his position in relation to any jurisdictional challenge he raises in an adjudication, the court may imply that this means that the respondent is content to be bound by the adjudicator’s decision on the jurisdictional challenge.His Honour Judge Coulson QC – Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court Background The Defendant raised the argument in the adjudication that the adjudicator did not have the necessary jurisdiction to decide the dispute because there was no contract in writing. The adjudicator considered this submission and decided that there was a contract in writing. Therefore, the jurisdictional challenge failed. An issue that arose in enforcement proceedings...
-
1st November 2007Moorside Investments Ltd v DAG Construction Ltd [2007] Lawtel AC0115735
-
30th October 2007Ringway Infrastructure Services Ltd v Vauxhall Motors Ltd No 2 [2007] EWHC 2507 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes The Court has a statutory discretion as to what interest is payable on sums awarded by an adjudicator from the date upon which the cause of action arises until the date on which judgment is given. The cause of action in an enforcement application of an adjudicator’s decision is the failure by the unsuccessful party to comply with that decision, therefore that will be the date from which the Court has discretion to award interest. Mr Justice Akenhead – Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction CourtBackground Ringway was awarded summary judgment enforcing an adjudicator’s decision relating to payment against Vauxhall (please click here to read a summary of that decision). It was held by Mr Justice Akenhead...
-
25th October 2007Treasure & Son Ltd v Dawes [2007] EWHC 2420 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes An oral variation to a construction contract (to which the HGCRA did not apply because it related to a residential development) was held not to, of itself, undermine the contractual adjudication process or preclude the adjudicator from having jurisdiction. Furthermore, the lack of signature on the adjudicator’s decision did not invalidate that decision. Mr Justice Akenhead – Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court Background Treasure was appointed to carry out refurbishment and restoration works at Dinmore Manor by Mr Dawes under a contract incorporating the JCT Standard Form of Prime Cost Contract (1998 Edition with amendments 1 and 2). Practical Completion of the works was certified in December 2004,...
-
23rd October 2007Ringway Infrastructure Services Ltd v Vauxhall Motors Ltd No1 [2007] EWHC 2421 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes A dispute over payment was held to have crystallized when, following an application for interim payment under the contract by the contractor, no valid withholding notice was issued by the employer. A common sense application of the existing case law on “no dispute” arguments was taken.Mr Justice Akenhead – Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction CourtBackgroundVauxhall employed Ringway to construct a new vehicle distribution centre and various associated works under a contract incorporating the JCT Standard Form of Contract With Contractor’s Design (1998 Edition). Substantial delays occurred on the project which, according to Ringway, resulted from factors for which they were not responsible. ...
-
3rd October 2007Leading Rule v Phoenix Interiors Ltd [2007] EWHC 2293 (TCC)
-
30th July 2007Michael John Construction Ltd v St Peters Rugby Football Club [2007] EWHC 1857 (TCC)
-
17th July 2007Pierce Design International Ltd v Johnston [2007] EWHC 1691 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes The TCC has upheld a provision entitling an employer to withhold payment without having issued a withholding notice where the contract was determined for default of the contractor. This effectively confirms that the House of Lords decision in Melville Dundas v Wimpey is not limited to situations of insolvency and/or impossibility of issuing a withholding notice.His Honour Judge Coulson QC – Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction CourtBackground The defendants engaged the claimant to carry out construction works under a contract incorporating the JCT Standard Form of Building Contract (With Contractor’s Design), 1998 edition (with amendments). The defendants failed to pay in full a number of interim payments...