- 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.
-
22nd June 2001Mecright v Morris [2001] HT 01 84This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes In an Adjudication conducted pursuant to the Scheme, the jurisdiction of the Adjudicator derives from the Notice of Adjudication which may not be cut down or enlarged upon by matters referred to in the Referral Notice or other documents submitted during the course of the Adjudication. The scope may be enlarged by agreement or if it is a matter arising under the relevant contract which the Adjudicator considers is necessarily connected with the dispute. His Honour Judge Richard Seymour QC, Technology and Construction Court 22 June 2001 Morris subcontracted the design, fabrication, supply and erection of structural steel work, roof decking and walling cladding at a retail park in Staffordshire to Mecright. The Scheme for Construction Contracts applied. After...
-
15th June 2001Sindall Ltd v Abner Solland [2002] Con LRHT 01/129This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Consideration of the timeliness of a contractor's performance for the purposes of deciding whether the employer has the right to determine the contractor's employment for a failure to proceed regularly and diligently must take into account the true completion date. Accordingly, when time for completion is an ingredient of the dispute referred an adjudicator will have jurisdiction to decide the length of any extension of time due. HHJ Humphrey LLoyd, Technology and Construction Court 15 June 2001 The Claimant, S1 was employed by the Defendant, S2 to carry out renovation works to a property in London. MEA was the contract administrator appointed by S2. The contract for the works specified a completion date, but permitted MEA to grant extensions of...
-
1st June 2001Faithful & Gould Ltd v Arcal Ltd [2001] Case No: E190023 TCCThis summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes An adjudicator must be a natural person acting in his personal capacity, however, there is no rule which says he must sue for his fees in his own name. Technology and Construction Court (Newcastle Upon Tyne District Registry) 25 May 2001 Two applications were heard: the first related to the Defendants' contention that the Claimant's claim should be struck out as disclosing no cause of action. Their case was that the adjudicator, G, sued for his fees under the name of the company where he was employed rather than in his personal capacity and the role of an adjudicator must be carried out by an individual. The judge rejected this, seeing no reason why G, who happened to work in a company that administered his fees, should have to sue for his fees...
-
31st May 2001Fence Gate Ltd v James R Knowles Ltd TCC 25/01 SF102200 [2001]This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Disputes relating to payment for appearing as a witness of fact and for assisting at an arbitration are not disputes "in relation to construction contracts" in accordance with s105 of the Act and therefore an adjudicator does not have jurisdiction to act in relation to these. HHJ Gilliland, Technology and Construction Court 31 May 2001 F appointed J under a contract to provide architectural and surveying services described as "Preliminary Report on defective kitchen floor" and also to provide evidence as a witness of fact as an architect or engineer and assisting in an arbitration as an architect or engineer. J claimed payment under 4 invoices in respect of services rendered to F under the contract. The matter was referred to adjudication; the...
-
22nd May 2001A De Gruchy Holdings Ltd v House Of Fraser (Stores) Ltd [2001] TCC. HT 00 -186
-
15th May 2001Re A Company (number 1299 of 2001) [2001]This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-lawnow.com/adjudication In the absence of an s111 withholding notice, it is not possible to advance an abatement or set-off against the sum demanded (even if defective work was not apparent at the time a notice should have been given). A winding-up petition based on a statutory demand for a sum due may be restrained where the cross-claim is genuine and serious, exceeds the sum due and is one which the company has been unable to litigate. Deputy HHJ David Donaldson, Chancery Division CCL was the main contractor in the construction of 4 houses and engaged a roofing sub-contractor, GAL. CCL terminated GAL's contract after about 2 months and left outstanding the sum of £9,702.47 on 2 valuations. GAL served a Statutory Demand on the alleged debt. CCL sought a final injunction to prevent GAL...
-
9th May 2001RJT Consulting Engineers Ltd v DM Engineering Ltd [2002] BLR 217HHJ MacKay considered an application for a declaration that the agreement between the parties was not an agreement in writing as provided for by section 107 of the HGCRA. HHJ MacKay said that section 107 was an inclusive not an exclusive piece of legislation. The purpose of the act was to bring in agreements which would not be caught otherwise by the act to enable parties to construction agreements to take advantage of the procedure set out in the act. The material between the parties by way of written subsidence (i.e. such as to evidence the agreement in writing) was "comparatively great". If it were necessary to insist upon a recitation of the agreement when the existence of the agreement, the parties to the agreement, the nature of the work and a price of that agreement are clearly to be found in documentary form then this would be contrary to the terms of the HGCRA.
-
20th April 2001Farebrother B.S. Ltd v Frogmore Investments Ltd [2001] SF101587This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Under the TeCSA Adjudication Rules 1999, the adjudicator can rule on his own jurisdiction and the scope of the adjudication. Such decision would be binding on the parties. The approach in KNS Industrial Services v Sindall was approved. HHJ Gilliland QC, Technology & Construction Court 20 April 2001 FI employed FBS as a building contractor. A dispute arose over the extension of time due to FBS, and FBS submitted this dispute to adjudication under the TeCSA Adjudication Rules (1999). FBS's notice of adjudication sought an extension of 22 weeks together with additional payment for loss and expense. FBS' subsequent referral notice sought a longer period of time. FI alleged that FBS was in critical delay and sought to set off other sums by way of...
-
11th April 2001Austin Hall v Buckland Securities Ltd [2001] HT 00 477This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Adjudication is not subject to the Human Rights Act 1998. An adjudicator is not a public authority since he is not a tribunal deciding legal proceedings. Further, the Court should also take into account the Court enforcement proceedings when considering if there has been a breach of a Convention right HHJ Bowsher QC, Technology & Construction Court 11 April 2001 B employed A to carry out building works on the terms of the JCT Agreement for Minor Building Works. B did not pay A's final account so A referred the dispute to adjudication. The adjudicator found in A's favour. A applied for summary judgment to enforce the adjudicator's decision. This was the first "frontal assault" on adjudication under the Human Rights Act 1998 ("HRA"). B resisted...
-
11th April 2001Discain Project Services Ltd v Opecprime Developments Ltd No2 [2001] EWHC TCC 435This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes HHJ Bowsher QC, Technology & Construction Court Where there has been a substantial and relevant breach of the rules of natural justice, and where an objective bystander could conclude that the adjudicator was or may be biased, the Court would refuse to enforce his decision. 11 April 2001 This is the Court's judgment following a full trial of the dispute concerning the enforceability of the adjudicator's decision, after the Court refused summary judgment (see page 46 above). The Court invited the adjudicator to be joined to the action. The adjudicator did not so wish, but he was called by the Court as a witness so that he could be cross-examined by both parties, and he also filed written submissions. The complaint about the adjudicator's conduct...