- 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 December 2006Quietfield Ltd v Vascroft Construction Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1737This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Lord Justices May and Dyson, Lady Justice Smith DBE – Court of AppealSection 108(3) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 and paragraph 23 of the Scheme for Construction Contracts provide for the temporary finality of an adjudicator’s decision. Paragraph 9(2) of the Scheme obliges an adjudicator to resign where the dispute is the same or substantially the same as one which has previously been referred to adjudication, and a decision has been taken in that adjudication. This case looks at how these provisions aimed at preventing an adjudicator re-hearing the same or substantially the same dispute interrelate with a usual provision in a construction contract allowing a contractor to make successive applications...
-
20th December 2006Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1834
-
15th December 2006ROK Build Ltd v Harris Wharf Development Company Ltd [2006] EWHC 3573 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes The referring party in an adjudication must be a contracting party to the relevant construction contract (or an assignee). In this case, a substitution of one party for another had occurred, but no formal written assignment (as required by the contract) had taken place, therefore the court held that the referring party had no right to adjudication under the contract.His Honour Judge Wilcox – Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction CourtRok applied for enforcement of an adjudication decision made pursuant to a dispute in a construction contract. Harris Wharf contested the jurisdiction of the adjudicator on the grounds that Rok had not been the legal entity that had entered into the construction contract with Harris...
-
8th December 2006Nageh v Giddings [2006] EWHC 3240 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes In this case, the court took the opportunity to express its disapproval at attempts to attack the adjudicator’s jurisdiction on the basis of minor procedural gripes, which were, in the circumstances, unfounded. His Honour Judge Coulson QC – Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction CourtThis case dealt with an application to set aside a summary judgment based on an unpaid adjudication order made against the Defendants. The court held that the application failed on procedural grounds. Firstly, there was a long delay (over a year) in bringing the application. Secondly, the Defendants argued that they had been unaware of the proceedings or the summary judgment. The judge found that the Claimants...
-
16th November 2006Bothma D & T t/a DAB Builders v Mayhaven Healthcare Ltd [2006] TCC Bristol 6BS90599
-
14th November 2006Thomas Vale Construction Plc v Brookside Syston Ltd [2006] EWHC 3637 (TCC)
-
7th November 2006South West Contractors Ltd v Birakos Enterprises Ltd [2006] EWHC 2794 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes The absence of an express reference to mitigation in adjudicator’s decision does not mean that the adjudicator has failed to consider it and, in any event, it is not the role of the court to examine minutely the reasons for a decision to see whether an adjudicator may have made a mistake.His Honour Judge Wilcox – Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction CourtBackground South West were engaged as project managers on a project to carry out conversion works to office premises pursuant to a fee agreement and a separate management agreement. The fee agreement related to the profit element of South West’s earnings, whereas the management agreement related to South West’s costs. Birakos terminated South West’s...
-
3rd November 2006Hart Investments Ltd v Fidler [2006] EWHC 2857 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes This case raises two points. First, that decision of an adjudicator where the referral notice was served outside the permitted time will be unenforceable. Secondly, a contract in writing will only be considered as such for the purposes of Section 107 of the Construction Act where all of the terms of the contract are in writing. The effect of this is that letters of intent will often fall short of the requirement.His Honour Judge Peter Coulson QC - Queen's Bench Division, Technology and Construction CourtOn 1 November 2002, Hart Investments Limited (“Hart”) sent a letter of intent to Larchpark, via its agents, instructing Larchpark to carry out extensive building works at a property that Hart owned at Muswell Hill, London. The letter of intent...
-
1st November 2006Chorus Group v Berner (BVI) Ltd & Anor [2006] EWHC 3622 (TCC)
-
12th October 2006Knapman R J Ltd. v Richards [2006] EWHC 2518 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes It seems that non-compliance with part of an adjudicator’s decision will not preclude a party from obtaining a court order for enforcement of other parts of the decision that were decided by the adjudicator in its favour.Furthermore, the court will not, as a general rule, assume that the parties have abandoned any part of the existing contract pursuant to an adjudication order unless it can be demonstrated that the adjudicator was expressly asked to do something, or decide something, which under the contract would be the responsibility of either one of the parties or the contract administrator.His Honour Judge Coulson QC – Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction CourtBackground Richards engaged Knapman to build two detached...