- 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.
-
14th November 2005Midland Expressway Ltd v Carillion Construction Ltd (No1) [2005] EWHC 2810 (TCC)
-
11th November 2005Captiva Estates Ltd v Rybarn Ltd [2005] EWHC 2744 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Section 6 of the Construction Contracts Exclusion Order 1998, Statutory Instrument 1998 No 648 is not concerned only with unconditional agreements; a contract containing the grant of an option to take a leasehold or freehold interest in the land on which construction operations take place would fall within the ambit of section 6 of the Exclusion Order. Further, the grant or disposal of the leasehold or freehold interest of the land does not need to relate to the whole of the land on which the principal construction operations take place under the contract. Judge David Wilcox Technology and Construction Court Captiva entered into a written contract with Rybarn whereby Rybarn agreed to construct 28 residential flats and 28 parking spaces (either...
-
10th November 2005David McClean Contractors Ltd v The Albany Building Ltd [2005] TCC 101/05This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes There is no right to set-off against sums found due by an adjudicator on the basis that a party might be entitled to monies if it succeeds in a claim that it puts forward at a later date. Allegations of a breach of natural justice by the adjudicator, lack of jurisdiction, and that the adjudicator had already decided the issue in an earlier adjudication, were all rejected on the facts of the case. His Honour Judge Gilliland QC, Salford District Registry, Technology & Construction Court Albany engaged David McLean Contractors (DMC) as contractors under a JCT form of building contract. Disputes arose between the parties regarding certain interim payments and Albany’s entitlement to deduct liquidated and ascertained damages (LADs)...
-
31st October 2005Hackwood Ltd v Areen Design Services Ltd [2005] EWHC 2322 (TCC)
-
29th July 2005Bryen & Langley Ltd v Boston [2005] EWCA Civ 973This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes The Court of Appeal has issued a reminder of the fact that simply because two parties had proposed that their agreement be contained in a formal contract to be drawn up and signed in the future, this did not preclude the conclusion that they had already informally contractually committed themselves on exactly the same terms. The residential occupier/employer’s argument that the adjudication clause was an unfair term was dismissed on the grounds that it was the consumer/employer who had stipulated that a standard form contract should apply (the JCT Standard Form of Building Contract, Private with Quantities, 1998 Ed.) to the works in the first place.Lord Justices Pill and Clarke and Mr Justice Rimer – Court of Appeal (Civil Division)...
-
25th July 2005John Roberts Architects Ltd v Parkcare Homes (No2) Ltd [2005] EWHC 1637 (TCC)
-
22nd July 2005Lloyd Projects Ltd v John Malnick [2005] EWHC CivThis summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes A construction contract made orally and recorded subsequently in writing will only satisfy the criteria set out in s.107(2)(c) of the HGCRA if it contains all of the material terms and there are no disputes between the parties as to the terms of that contract.Her Honour Judge Kirkham – Queen’s Bench Division, Birmingham District Registry, Technology and Construction CourtBackground Mr Malnick, a commercial property solicitor, engaged Lloyd Projects to convert his offices into three residential flats. The agreement was concluded orally. Five months later, Lloyd Projects sought to record the agreement reached in a letter dated 11 February to Mr Malnick, a duplicate of which Mr Malnick was requested to countersign and return. ...