- 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.
-
17th March 2005Amec v S.S. for Transport [2005] EWCA 291 CAThis summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Guidance as to the meaning of "dispute" for the purposes of s108(1) of the Housing Grants Construction & Regeneration Act 1996. It is wrong to apply an over-legalistic approach to the question of whether a dispute or difference has arisen. On appeal from the judgment of Mr Justice Jackson dated 11 October 2004 Lord Justice May, Lord Justice Rix and Lord Justice Hooper 17 March 2005 In 1995 AMEC was engaged by the Secretary of State to carry out renovation works at Thelwall Viaduct. The contract incorporated the ICE conditions, 5th edition, with some amendments. The contract was executed under hand, not as a deed. Pell Frischmann were named as engineer in the contract. The works were certified by the engineer as complete on 23 December 1996...
-
1st March 2005Connex South Eastern Ltd v M J Building Services Group Plc [2005] EWCA Civ 193This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes An adjudication may be brought after a construction contract has been terminated. The fact that many months, or perhaps years, have elapsed since the contract was terminated does not prevent an adjudication from being commenced. Where an adjudication is brought after an elapse of time, the adjudicator will not have jurisdiction to stay or strike out the adjudication proceedings should it be alleged that they were brought as an "abuse of process". Court of Appeal. Ward, Dyson and Carnwath LJJ 1 March 2005 This case concerned a contractor's claim for damages, including loss of profit, flowing from the termination of a contract whereunder the contractor was to supply and install CCTV cameras at a number of train stations. The...
-
24th February 2005Great Eastern Hotel Company Ltd v John Laing Construction Ltd [2005] EWHC 181
-
11th February 2005Geris v CNIM [2005] EWHC 499This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes This case concerned the interpretation of an adjudicator's decision. On the facts, the court held that the adjudicator both decided that sums were due to the referring party but also that the respondent had an entitlement to set off against those sums. As the respondent therefore had a realistic prospect of successfully maintaining its defence to the enforcement proceedings, namely that the decision should not be read as giving rise to an immediate right to payment, the application to enforce the decision was dismissed. Further, although it was not a part of his reasoning, the judge remarked that the courts should only allow a defendant to rely upon an equitable set off to postpone or defeat an adjudicator's decision in the rarest and most exceptional...
-
13th January 2005William Verry (Glazing Systems) Ltd v Furlong Homes Ltd [2005] EWHC 138This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes A party was not bringing a new claim by submitting a Response to the Referral Notice which included a claim for an extension of time for a period that was greater than it had indicated prior to the issue of the Adjudication Notice. In any event, the Adjudication Notice was drafted so broadly as to give the adjudicator jurisdiction to hear the dispute. His Honour Judge Peter Coulson QC, Technology and Construction Court 13 January 2005 The Claimant ("Verry") was appointed by the Defendant ("Furlong") as a design and build contractor. Completion was due in late 2003 but in the event did not take place until the end of July 2004. Furlong granted Verry two extensions of time to 2 February 2004 but Verry maintained they were entitled...
-
21st December 2004Balfour Beatty Construction v Serco Ltd [2004] EWHC 3336 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Mr Justice Jackson, Technology and Construction Court 21 December 2004 In considering the question of whether an employer is entitled to set off liquidated damages against monies payable to a contractor under an adjudicator's award, the court must consider the adjudicator's decision: where it followed from an adjudicator's decision that the employer is entitled to recover a specified sum of money by way of LADs, then the employer could set that off against the sums payable to the contractor as a result of the adjudicator's decision; however, where the entitlement to LADs has not been determined, either expressly or impliedly by the adjudicator, then the question of the employer's entitlement to set off depends upon the terms of the contract...
-
7th December 2004Collins v Baltic Quay [2004] EWCA Civ 1757This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Where a party has wrongfully withheld monies under a construction contract by failing to issue a valid notice of withholding, and the parties have entered into an arbitration agreement, any application by the claimant to the court for payment of those monies will be stayed under s9(4) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (unless the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed); there is nothing in s111 of the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act that requires such claims to be dealt with by the court. Even if a withholding notice is not served, the claim for payment still constitutes a "dispute or difference" that needs to be determined. The question of whether a "dispute or difference" has arisen for the...
-
6th December 2004Stratfield Saye Estate Trustees v AHL Construction Ltd [2004] EWHC 3286This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes The court held that for a construction contract to be in writing and therefore comply with section 107 of the Construction Act, all the express terms of the contract had to be in writing. It is not sufficient for only the material terms of the contract to be in writing. However, not all of the express terms have to be contained within the same document. In this case, the contract and the scope of the works were said by the court to be sufficiently evidenced in writing by letters, drawings and minutes of a meeting. The Trustees of the Stratfield Saye Estate ("the Estate") engaged AHL Construction Ltd ("AHL") to carry out restoration works to a derelict property belonging to the Estate called Heckfield Wood House. Prior to commencement of the works,...