- 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.
-
11th January 2002Watkin Jones v Lidl UK GMBH [2002] HT 02/121This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes There is a dispute once money is claimed unless and until the Defendant admits that the sum is due and payable. Passive failure to admit suffices to constitute a dispute.HHJ Moseley QC at the Cardiff Technology and Construction Court11 January 2002By a JCT Standard Form of Building Contract with Contractor's Design 1998 Edition incorporating various amendments, W agreed to demolish existing structures and construct a retail store for Lidl. Practical completion occurred on 22 June 2001.On 17 July 2001 W submitted an application for payment no. 11 which it alleged was an application for an interim payment under the contract. Lidl made no payment and W served a Notice of Adjudication referring what they alleged was a dispute within the meaning of...
-
27th December 2001Watkin Jones v Lidl UK GMBH [2001] HT 01/465This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Clause 30.3.3 of JCT98 WCD means that an Employer who wishes to say that sums are not due should serve a notice stating what is due. Failure to do so will mean that the Contractor is entitled to the sum for which he applied pursuant to Clause 30.3.5. HHJ Humphrey Lloyd QC, Technology & Construction Court 27 December 2001 L entered into a JCT 1998 Contract with Contractor's Design with WJ in respect of a new retail store in Bangor. In accordance with the contract WJ made an application for payment for the net sum of £340,182.24 (plus VAT). L appeared to have mistakenly treated the application as a valuation for final account and did not serve the notice required under the contract stating which amounts were due and did not pay any money...
-
11th December 2001Discain Project Services Ltd v Opecprime Developments Ltd No3 [2001] EWHC TCC 450
-
30th November 2001Isovel Contracts Ltd v ABB Technologies Ltd [2001] CH.Div HC 00 004450
-
23rd November 2001Jerome Engineering v Lloyd Morris [2002] ITC 00221This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes The Adjudicator's failure to follow the correct procedure did not make the interim award unenforceable because he had addressed the right question. In construing a Notice to Refer Disputes to Adjudication, it is permissible to have regard to the background known to the parties. His Honour Judge Cockroft, Technology & Construction Court (Leeds) 23 November 2001 J sub-contracted LM to carry out mechanical and electrical installation work. The contract incorporated the standard DOM2 Without Design Conditions of Contract. Clause 38A provided for an adjudication procedure. Disputes arose concerning variations and valuations, and J served Notice of Intention to Refer to Adjudication and formally referred the matter to Mr Maxwell McCoy. The adjudicator...
-
4th October 2001Oakley (William) v Airclear Environmental Ltd [2001]This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Absent a contract, it may nonetheless be possible to ground an adjudicator's jurisdiction by showing an ad hoc adoption by the parties of adjudication as a dispute resolution mechanism by way of an estoppel by convention Etherton J, Chancery Division 4 October 2001 S&N employed Oakley and nominated AEL as mechanical and air-conditioning sub-contractors. No formal sub-contract was concluded. Oakley deducted loss and expense and other sums from AEL's stage payments. AEL said that Oakley could not do this because there was no sub-contract. Oakley asked the President of the RICS to appoint an arbitrator to resolve the dispute, citing clause 35B of NAM/SC (which would have been incorporated if there was a sub-contract). AEL approached the RIBA to...
-
2nd October 2001Robert McAlpine (Sir) v Pring St Hill [2001] TCC 779This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes An adjudicator's decision under the JCT contracts is likely to be enforced, and a stay will not be granted, in circumstances where the defendant has a counterclaim which is the subject of an adjudication if no effective withholding notice has been served. The sum awarded by the adjudicator will be treated as an amount due under the contract. Moseley QC 2nd October 2001, TCC R was the main contractor for the construction of a building and engaged P as sub-contractor on JCT standard terms. The contract provided for the referral of disputes to an adjudicator and that the parties would give effect to the decision of the adjudicator. The adjudicator found that P had damaged glass, which had already been installed by R, during the sub-contract works and...
-
27th September 2001Paul Jensen Ltd v Stavely Industries [2001] WN 101245This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes The Adjudicator was entitled to his fees, where he decided that he did not have jurisdiction and did not proceed with the adjudication. There was no suggestion of default or misconduct. It did not matter that he may have been wrong in concluding that he had no jurisdiction. District Judge Donnelly at Wigan County Court 27 September 2001 This case arose from a referral by S of a dispute between them and Salford City Council to Paul Jensen, of the Claimant company (PJL), to act as Adjudicator. Mr Jensen was asked to consider whether he had jurisdiction to hear the adjudication and he dealt with this matter as a preliminary issue. Mr Jensen took the view that he did not have jurisdiction to hear the adjudication. S alleged that the Mr Jensen was wrong...
-
26th September 2001Pro-Design v New Millenium Experience Co Ltd [2001] LV 190224This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes The adjudicator's powers were constrained under the HGCRA to decide on issues related only to the construction work. Whilst claims under the HGCRA should normally go through, there is no overriding objective upon the court to ensure that fraudulent claimants should benefit from their fraud. His Honour Judge MacKay, Technology and Construction Court, Liverpool 26 September 2001 NME entered into a sub-contract with PD for PD to construct lighting systems in the Millennium Dome. A dispute arose over the sums due to PD and was referred to adjudication. NME refused to pay the sums decided on by the adjudicator and PD applied for summary judgment. The Judge refused the application for summary judgment, and commented that this matter was likely to proceed...