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 February 2003
    Pegram Shopfitters v Tally Weijl [2003] HT 03/25
    Tally declined to pay the sum of ?95,483.78 plus interest and the adjudicator's fees arguing that there was no construction contract between the parties or if there was a contract, that the contract was different in content to the contract found to exist by the adjudicator. Pegram claimed that it was one based on its own conditions of sale whilst Tally claimed that it was one based on the JCT Prime Cost Standard Form of Contract 1998. There were no adjudication provisions in the Pegram standard terms thus on its case, the Scheme would apply. Here, HHJ Thornton QC found that the parties had entered into a construction contract in such a way that its terms were not clearly and unquestionably capable of being identified. The reason was that the negotiations consisted of a series of offers and counter offers. No complete set of contract documentation was identified. Therefore, the parties had...
  • 6th February 2003
    Checkpoint Ltd v Strathclyde Pension Fund [2003] EWCA Civ 84
  • 31st January 2003
    Dumarc Building Services Ltd v Mr Salvador Rico [2003] KT203081Epsom C.C
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes An important purpose of statutory adjudications is to provide contractors with a fast-track method of obtaining funds to which they are apparently entitled, at least on a provisional basis. That purpose would be frustrated if owners could easily set-off moneys from amounts determined by an adjudicator to be owing. HHJ Hull QC, Epsom County Court 31 January 2003 This summary has not been prepared using the judgment, which is not yet available. An owner and a contractor entered into a contract using the JCT Minor Works form. The contract was for work at a residential home. Although residential building work is not subject to the operation of the HGCRA, the parties had agreed to amend the standard form so that disputes could be adjudicated as...
  • 28th January 2003
    Try Construction Ltd v Eton Town House Group Ltd [2003] EWHC 60 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes E argued that there had been a breach of natural justice because the adjudicator had used his own methodology without bringing significant issues to E's attention. However, the Judge held that an adjudicator is not limited to the material presented by the parties. He may take further information and apply his own knowledge and experience, having an absolute discretion to do what he considers necessary. The parties had also agreed to the adjudicator's appointment of a programming expert HHJ David Wilcox, Technology and Construction Court 28 January 2003 E engaged T under a JCT 98 contract to do conversion work. Delays occurred and T submitted several claims. Two claims for extension of time were rejected and referred to adjudication. The adjudicator's...
  • 24th January 2003
    Costain Ltd v Wescol Steel Ltd [2003] EWHC 312 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes There are 'different meanings or nuances of meaning' of 'dispute', as set out in Halki. On the facts of this case, a dispute had arisen as the claim had been made but not paid. HHJ Havery QC, Technology and Construction Court 24 January 2003 CL engaged WSL as a steelwork sub-contractor. The works were purportedly completed in July 2002. WSL entered administrative receivership in September 2002.  On 24 September 2002 WSL said that its agents (C&B) would contact CL shortly to discuss the sub-contract. On 18 October 2002, without C&B apparently having contacted CL, WSL threatened to commence an adjudication in respect of its final account and extension of time entitlement, if CL did not pay WSL the requested sum by 11 November 2002.  On...
  • 22nd January 2003
    Ferson Contractors Ltd v Levolux A.T. Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 11
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes A provision in a construction contract governed by the HGCR Act 1996, however clearly worded, that entitles a party to withhold against and/or not to pay an Adjudicator's decision because, say, the contract has been terminated, is inconsistent with the HGCR Act 1996 and therefore invalid. Court of Appeal 22 January 2003 The facts and decision at first instance are set out on page 114. The Defendant ('FC') appealed unsuccessfully from that decision. The Court of Appeal approved Judge Wilcox's finding that it was implicit in the Adjudicator's decision that the Claimant ('LAT') was entitled to suspend the works and the purported determination, based on LAT's wrongful suspension of the works, was invalid. FC relied upon a passage in the judgment of...
  • 15th January 2003
    Joinery Plus Ltd (in administration) v Laing Ltd [2003] HT 02/323
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes A decision made by applying the wrong contractual terms may be made without jurisdiction. This is different from applying the wrong construction to contractual terms. If a party wishes to challenge the validity of a decision, it should not ask the adjudicator to correct it. HHJ Thornton QC, Technology and Construction Court 15 January 2003 J was engaged as sub-contractor to L for two different projects. One project was under JCT Works contract standard terms ("Admiralty") and the other was under a heavily amended DOM/2 contract ("Metropole"). Adjudication under Admiralty was in accordance with the JCT rules; Metropole contained no adjudication provisions so the Scheme for Construction Contract applied. Both projects were contentious and J referred...
  • 19th December 2002
    Picardi (Gennario Maurizio) (t/a Picardi Architects) v Cuniberti [2002] EWHC 2923 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes In contracts with a residential occupier (to which HGCRA 1996 does not apply) adjudication provisions may be unenforceable if they are not fairly and properly brought to the client's attention and individually negotiated. His Honour Judge Toulmin CMG QC, Technology and Construction Court 19 December 2002 The Defendants ('the Cunibertis') engaged the Claimant Architect ('Mr Picardi') in connection with the refurbishment of their private dwelling house. The works cost in excess of £2m. A dispute concerning Mr Picardi's fees was referred to adjudication. The adjudicator decided that the Cunibertis should pay outstanding fees of £42,862, his fees of £5,760 plus VAT and interest. It was agreed that there could be no statutory right...
  • 6th December 2002
    Baldwins Industrial Service plc v Barr Ltd [2002] EWHC 2915 (TCC)
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes This was a contract for the supply of plant and labour. That the crane came with a driver was not incidental. B had hired the crane plus operator to undertake construction work. The contract was a construction contract within the HGCRA and the adjudicator had jurisdiction. As the party claiming was in receivership, a stay of execution of the judgment was granted, upon conditions of payment into court and prompt commencement of proceedings. HHJ Frances Kirkham, Technology and Construction Court (Birmingham) 6 December 2002 A (the claimant) hired a crane, together with a driver, to B (the defendant). The crane was damaged and A sought damages from B. The matter was referred to adjudication. The adjudicator rejected B's argument that he lacked jurisdiction...
  • 27th November 2002
    Carillion Construction Ltd v Devonport Royal Dockyard Ltd HT-02-395
    This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes If a variation to the terms of a contract is agreed orally, this must be recorded or evidenced in writing, failing which an adjudicator will not have jurisdiction to decide disputes arising under the oral agreement. There was also no dispute; the defending party had asked for more information about the alleged breach of contract which the referring party had not supplied. HHJ Bowsher QC, Technology & Construction Court 27 November 2002 D employed C as a sub-contractor. It was agreed that C would be paid its actual cost plus accruals and a fee. There was an agreed target cost, but this was amended several times. On 30 October 2001 representatives of D and C met to discuss revisions to the payment provisions. C believed that it had been agreed...