- 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.
-
7th December 2009Fenice Investments Inc v Jerram Falkus Construction [2009] EWHC 3272 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary Where there was an irreconcilable conflict between payment provisions in the Employer’s Requirements and the payment clauses of the JCT Terms, the latter prevailed by virtue of the hierarchy clause in the JCT Terms. A losing party who makes a challenge to an adjudicator’s decision by issuing proceedings for a declaration on a point of law must, in the ordinary case, in the meantime pay the sum found by the adjudicator to be due. If that party fails to do so, then, whatever the result of the proceedings for a declaration, it should expect to be penalised for its default by way of both interest and costs. Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Coulson Background Fenice Investments Inc (“Fenice”)...
-
2nd December 2009Enterprise Managed Services v Tony McFadden Utilities [2009] EWHC 3222This 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 an adjudicator appointed under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (“the Construction Act”) did not have jurisdiction to determine the net balance due between a company in liquidation and a creditor pursuant to Rule 4.90 of the Insolvency Rules 1986. The Court also provided guidance on the approach that an adjudicator should take in relation to time limits for the making of his award where a dispute concerns a complex final account claim. Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Coulson Background In September 2002 Thames Water Services Ltd, trading as Subterra (“Subterra”), engaged Tony McFadden Ltd (“TML”) to...
-
17th November 2009Allied P&L Limited v Paradigm Housing Group Limited [2009] EWHC 2890This 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 an adjudicator had no jurisdiction to decide that part of a dispute which had not crystallised as at the date of the notice of adjudication. The Court held that such matters were not consequential upon and incidental to the claims which had been asserted and the fact that it must have been obvious that there would be a dispute about such matters was insufficient to enable the claimant to assert that there was a dispute. But the Court nevertheless enforced the adjudicator’s award because the respondent had not made an effective reservation of its position in relation to the jurisdictional challenge that it was now seeking to make. Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice...
-
12th November 2009Coventry Scaffolding v Lancsville Construction [2009] EWHC 2995This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes SUMMARY The Court gave guidance as to the steps that a party seeking to enforce an adjudicator’s decision should take with a view to saving costs and court time where a losing party to an adjudication does not participate in enforcement proceedings. Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Akenhead Background Coventry Scaffolding Company (London) Ltd (“Coventry”) was employed as sub-contractor by Lancsville Construction Ltd (“Lancsville”) to provide scaffolding for works undertaken by Lancsville as main contractor. There were disputes between the parties involving delays and entitlements to payment under interim applications. There were two adjudications arising from the disputes, both decided...
-
4th November 2009Southern Electric v Mead Realisations [2009] EWHC 2947 (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 the winning party to an adjudication was entitled to recover costs incurred in chasing the losing party for payment, when the losing party had failed to pay the sums due within the time period ordered by the adjudicator. No agreement had been reached that did not require the payment of such costs and the Court had a broad discretion to make a costs award in these circumstances. Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Akenhead Background Southern Electric Contracting Ltd (“Southern Electric”) provided mechanical and electrical installation work for Mead Realisations Ltd (“Mead”) pursuant to a written construction contract. Disputes arose in relation to the contract...
-
30th October 2009ROK Building v Celtic Composting Systems [2009] EWHC 2664This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary Valid adjudicators’ decisions are to be enforced without set-off or cross claim. The Court must interpret adjudicators’ decisions not only from the words used by the adjudicator but also in the context of the dispute which was referred to adjudication. On the facts of this case, the adjudicator had failed to state when payment of the sums he had found due to the claimant should be made. On a proper interpretation of the decision, however, the adjudicator was clearly calling for an actual payment by the defendant to the claimant, not simply requiring that the amount included in his decision should be the subject of later adjustment in certificates. Technology and Construction Court, Mr Justice Akenhead Background Celtic...
-
29th October 2009SG South Limited v Kings Head Cirencester LLP & Corn Hall Arcade [2009] EWHC 2645This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary (1) There is a distinction between an adjudication taking place where an allegation of fraud is raised (or could be raised), and where fraud only comes to light after an adjudication has taken place. In the latter case, fraud (or a strong allegation of fraud) could provide a basis for refusing to enforce an adjudicator’s decision. In the former case it generally will not. (2) A stay of execution on grounds of the alleged impecuniousity of the recovering party will not be made where the financial position of the recovering party was the same or very similar to its financial position at the time the relevant contract was made or where the financial difficulties faced were due in significant part to the paying party’s failure...