- 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.
-
13th June 2006Midland Expressway Ltd v Carillion Construction Ltd [2006] EWHC 1505 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Adjudication is only available once a dispute has arisen between the parties. A dispute can only be said to have crystallised if a claim is denied/not admitted by the other side. Further if a claim is presented in such a nebulous and ill-defined manner that the defendant cannot sensibly respond to it, neither silence nor express non-admission could give rise to a dispute for the purposes of adjudication or arbitration.It was also commented obiter that there was nothing in the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 that prevented a party from discontinuing a claim or a head of claim in an adjudication.Mr Justice Jackson – Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction CourtBackgroundThe Secretary of State appointed...
-
8th June 2006Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v West India Quay Development Co (Eastern) Ltd [2006] EWHC 1569 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Errors of fact or law made by the adjudicator will not render his decision invalid. The only challenge made to his decision must be on the grounds of breach of natural justice or excess of jurisdiction. Applying methods of analysis different to those adopted by the parties, failing to consider certain facts or to provide reasons for the decision do not, in the context of an adjudication, amount to a breach of natural justice nor excess of jurisdiction.Mr Justice Ramsey – Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction CourtBackground Multiplex successfully obtained several extensions of time in an adjudication, which reduced Multiplex’s overall liability for liquidated damages under the construction contract and resulted...
-
7th June 2006Hillview Industrial Developments (UK) Ltd v Botes Building Ltd [2006] EWHC 1365 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes This case constitutes a reminder that there are only very limited grounds upon which a defendant may successfully persuade a court to refuse to order summary enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision. A defendant is not entitled to withhold payment ordered in an adjudication on the grounds of his anticipated recovery in a future adjudication/court proceedings based on different issues. Judge Toulmin CMG QC – Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court This was an application by Hillview for summary judgment to enforce an adjudication decision against Botes. Botes accepted that the adjudicator’s decision was valid, but invited the court to hold that there were compelling circumstances why this case...
-
5th June 2006Multiplex Construction (UK) v Cleveland Bridge (UK) Ltd [2006] EWHC 1341 (TCC)
-
2nd May 2006Birse Construction Ltd v HLC Engenharia E Gestäo De Projectos Sa [2006] EWHC 1258 (TCC)
-
25th April 2006Westdawn Refurbishments Ltd v Roselodge Ltd [2006] Adj.L.R. 04/25
-
24th April 2006Paul Boardwell t/a Boardwell Construction v k3D Property Partnership Ltd [2006]
-
20th March 2006Rohde Construction v Markham-David [2006] EWHC 814 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes The Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 provides that documents relating to an adjudication have effectively been served if they are sent to the defendant’s last known principal residence. In a decision relating to an application to set aside a judgment in default enforcing the adjudication decision, the Technology and Construction Court suggested that an adjudication decision made in the absence of representations by the defendant because he never received the notice of adjudication and other ancillary documentation may be invalid. Jackson J suggested that if it turned out at trial that: (i) the defendant was indeed in ignorance of the adjudication because he had moved to a new address and the current tenants were...
-
20th March 2006William Verry Ltd v Camden London Borough Council [2006] EWHC 761 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes The payment of sums awarded in an adjudicator’s decision may not be resisted on the grounds that:i) Those sums are inconsistent with the sum certified in a certificate issued subsequent to the certificate which forms the subject matter of the adjudicator’s decision. The adjudicator’s decision is binding pending final determination of the disputes.ii) The opposing party has a counterclaim for unliquidated damages for breach of contract in respect of defects, which is currently the subject of an on-going adjudication. There is no right of set-off against an adjudicator’s decision, otherwise that would defeat the intention of Parliament. Mr Justice Ramsey – Queen’s Bench Division, Technology...
-
15th March 2006Harlow & Milner Ltd v Teasdale No2 [2006] EWHC 535 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes A Final Charging Order in respect of an unpaid judgment sum pursuant to an adjudicator’s decision cannot be opposed on the grounds that arbitration proceedings in respect of the same dispute are under way. To do so would wholly undermine the adjudication process and run the risk that unsuccessful parties to an adjudication could commence arbitration proceedings to avoid the adjudicator’s decision. In providing parties with a prompt (albeit temporary) result, the statutory adjudication process is precisely designed to avoid such delaying tactics. His Honour Judge Coulson, Technology and Construction Court This case concerns an application by the Claimant (‘Harlow’) to make Final an Interim Charging Order against...