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.

Show all casesprevious 1 2...34 35 363738 39 40...58 59 next

16th January 2006
Harlow & Milner Ltd v Teasdale [2006] EWHC 54 (TCC)

This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes The most efficient way of enforcing an adjudicator’s decision is to seek summary judgment through the Technology and Construction Court. There are very limited grounds on which a summary judgment application may be resisted by the unsuccessful party to an adjudication. In contrast, the commencement of bankruptcy or winding up proceedings may lead to prolongation of the point at which a judgment debt is obtained against the unsuccessful party, plus greater expense. Ordinarily, therefore, the issue of a statutory demand will not be the appropriate means of enforcing an adjudicator’s decision. HHJ Coulson QC Technology and Construction Court The dispute giving rise to the adjudication concerned a contract, in the JCT Minor...

Click here to read more
12th January 2006
Ardmore Construction Ltd v Taylor Woodrow Construction Ltd [2006] SCHOS3

This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes In this Scottish case the decision of an adjudicator was set aside on the basis that he had not afforded natural justice to the parties to the adjudication. The adjudication arose out of a subcontract for works at Glasgow Harbour, where the Scottish edition of the Standard Form of Sub-Contract Agreement, 1998 edition, was used. The underlying dispute between the parties concerned the subcontractor’s entitlement to overtime payments. The subcontractor contended that it had been instructed by the main contractor to accelerate its works, where the need to accelerate did not arise out of any breach of contract by the subcontractor. It was contended by the subcontractor that, in reliance on the instruction, it did accelerate its works, and was...

Click here to read more
10th January 2006
Andrew Wallace Ltd v Artisan Regeneration Ltd [2006] EWHC 15 (TCC)

This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes The defendants disputed an adjudicator’s award on the basis that (i) they had contracted with the claimant as an individual and not as a company, (ii) documents had been fabricated and the original contract altered and (iii) there had been no consensus to found an agreement in writing (with the result the adjudicator had no jurisdiction). On the facts, the court held that the defendants had no real prospect of defending the claim since (i) no question had been raised as to the identity of the claimant prior to the adjudication, (ii) there was insufficient evidence to show any fraud on the claimant’s part and (iii) the defendants had throughout acted as if a written contract was in place and had waived any right to object to the adjudicator’s...

Click here to read more
19th December 2005
All In One Building & Refurbishments Ltd v Makers UK Ltd [2005] EWHC 2943

This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes The time when a payment falls due under an interim or final application will not be determinative as to whether a dispute has arisen; in this case it was the entitlement to payment that was being denied and therefore it was irrelevant that the time for payment against the application had not yet lapsed. Criticisms as to how an adjudicator deals with apparent contradictions in evidence are not a matter for the court. Were it to have been demonstrated that the company was in insolvent liquidation then it would have been appropriate to refuse summary judgment. Judge David Wilcox Technology and Construction Court All in One Building and Refurbishments Ltd ("AIO") were engaged by Makers UK Ltd ("Makers") in November 2004 as subcontractors to refurbish...

Click here to read more
9th December 2005
Full Metal Jacket Ltd v Gowlain Building Group Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 1809

Click here to read more
5th December 2005
Brown (L) & Sons v Crosby North West Homes 2005] EWHC 3503 (TCC)

This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes This is a case looking at the scope of the adjudicator’s jurisdiction under the JCT Contract 1998 form. There was a discrepancy between clause 5 (which gave the parties the right to refer disputes to adjudication) and clause 39A.1 (which dealt with the adjudication procedure itself): the former referred to disputes arising “under” the contract, whereas the latter had been amended so that it read “under, out of or in connection with” the contract. Notwithstanding the absence of the words “out of or in connection with” in clause 5, the court found that the parties had intended to extend the adjudicator’s jurisdiction to cover disputes arising out of or in connection with the contract. ...

Click here to read more
25th November 2005
Tera Construction Ltd v Yung Ton Lam [2005] EWHC B1 (TCC)

This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes This case illustrates the fact that the courts are usually reluctant to (a) refuse enforcement of adjudication decisions for lack of jurisdiction on the part of the adjudicator or (b) exercise their discretion to order a stay of execution on the grounds that the employer has a claim in respect of defective works and/or that the contractor is in financial difficulties.Christopher Clarke J – Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction CourtBackground Mr Lam employed Tera to demolish a house and construct two new houses under a JCT Minor Works Agreement. Various issues arose between the parties, including the extension of time that was due to Tera, the valuation of the works, the sum due on the penultimate certificate toward payment,...

Click here to read more
24th November 2005
Midland Expressway Ltd (MEL) v Carillion Construction Ltd (CAMBBA) (No2) [2005] EWHC 2963 (TCC

This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes This is a particularly important case for those involved in PFIs and PPPs. It concerned the construction of the new M6 toll road, near Birmingham. The contractual arrangements for the PFI involved a special-purpose vehicle (SPV) company entering into a concession agreement with the Secretary of State for Transport, under which the SPV agreed to design, build and operate the M6 toll road. The SPV’s design and construct operations were subcontracted to a contractor, which was a consortium of large construction companies. The subcontract contained “equivalent project relief” provisions which, in effect, limited the subcontractor’s entitlement to payment for such matters as variations, and compensable delay, to the amount which...

Click here to read more
18th November 2005
Hatmet Ltd v Herbert (t/a LMS Lift Consultancy) [2005] EWHC 3529 (TCC)

This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes The construction contract must be made in writing, by exchange of communications in writing or evidenced in writing for the statutory provisions relating to adjudication to apply (s.107 HGCRA). In this case, the court held that even a simple contract that did not spell out terms regarding methodology or design specification could meet this requirement. This was so even though the court also found it necessary/appropriate to imply a term that the employer would pay a reasonable price because the parties had not agreed a revised price following changes to the specification for the works. Her Honour Judge Kirkham – Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction CourtBackground Bouygues was the main contractor on a construction...

Click here to read more
16th November 2005
Carillion Construction Ltd v Devonport Royal Dockyard Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 1358

This 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 reaffirmed the approach of the courts to adjudicator’s decisions, namely that they are to be treated as enforceable, and will only be interfered with in rare situations. This is so even if the adjudicator has made obvious or highly arguable errors of fact or law. The facts of this case were quite detailed, but in headline terms they concerned a dispute over a subcontractor’s entitlement to payment for performing works in upgrading a dock. The terms of payment under the subcontract, and a related “alliance agreement” between the parties, used a “target cost” mechanism, so that the pain or gain of cost overruns or savings would be shared between them. The project works were delayed, and...

Click here to read more

Show all casesprevious 1 2...34 35 363738 39 40...58 59 next