- 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.
-
24th January 2000Northern Developments (Cumbria) Ltd v J & J Nichol [2000] EWHC Technology 176This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes A matter that is not mentioned in a notice of intention to withhold payment is not something that the adjudicator can take into account as something necessarily connected with the dispute. The Scheme does not give the adjudicator power to award costs, but the parties can agree expressly or impliedly to give him the power. HHJ Bowsher QC, Technology & Construction Court 24 January 2000 N appointed J as sub-contractor to carry out works under sub-contract conditions DOM/2. N issued what purported to be a notice to withhold payment on the basis of delay and defective work, and J withdrew from site. N treated this as repudiation and appointed an alternative contractor. J issued an adjudication notice and the Scheme applied. N claimed that J's claim...
-
13th January 2000VHE Construction PLC v RBSTB Trust Co Ltd [2000] EWHC Technology 181This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Sums cannot be set off against adjudicator's decisions. If a valid notice of intention to withhold payment is served, and then overturned by an adjudicator's decision, payment should be made within 7 days of the decision. HHJ Hicks QC, Technology & Construction Court 13 January 2000 V was the main contractor under a JCT. '81 contract with R. The payment provisions provided that V should submit a VAT invoice prior to payment of interim valuations. V served a notice of adjudication in respect of its interim application 4 for which it had served no VAT invoice and for which R had served no notice of intention to withhold. It sought full payment of that application which included sums for variations and loss and expense. The adjudicator made an award...
-
4th January 2000Fastrack Contractors Ltd v Morrison Construction Ltd [2000] BLR 168This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes An adjudicator can enquire into his own jurisdiction, but his decision will not bind the parties and can be reviewed by the court. One dispute can encompass all claims, issues and contentions in issue when the reference was made. HHJ Thornton QC, Technology & Construction Court 4 January 2000 F was a brickwork sub-contractor to M. The work became delayed and the parties blamed each other. F applied for an extension of time; M said it would take some of F's work away; F threatened to take legal action. On 26 February, F submitted an interim application. M served a notice on 2 March saying it was going to monitor F's work. M then served a notice of payment on 10 March reducing several of the amounts claimed. It also said that third parties would...
-
30th November 1999Sherwood & Casson Ltd v Mackenzie HT99000188This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes The court can examine a jurisdictional challenge on the basis that the dispute is the same or substantially the same as one previously referred to adjudication, but will only enquire if there are substantial grounds for showing the adjudicator erred. A claim for interim payment and a final account claim may not be the same. HHJ Thornton QC, Technology & Construction Court 30 November 1999 S was a sub-contractor to M, under a contract incorporating the provisions of JCT. '80. The sub-contract contained no adjudication clause so the Scheme for Construction Contracts applied. In the first adjudication, S sought payment of variations contained within an interim application and was awarded £6,631.30. It then submitted its Final Account which...
-
18th November 1999Homer Burgess Ltd v Chirex (Annan) Ltd [2000] BLR 124 Outer CourtThis summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Where parts of an award are valid, and parts made without jurisdiction, the Court may reduce the award and ask the adjudicator to decide which parts of the award were within jurisdiction. Lord MacFadyen, Outer House, Court of Session 18 November 1999 In his previous decision on the construction of the word "plant", Lord MacFadyen found that the adjudicator's decision was, to a substantial extent, beyond his jurisdiction, since much of H's contract was not a "construction contract" within the meaning of the Act. C had not maintained that the whole of the parties' dispute fell outside the adjudicator's jurisdiction, so the Court had to decide what order to make in relation to the small area that was within his jurisdiction. The Court had two options: reduce...
-
17th November 1999Bouygues UK Ltd v Dahl-Jensen UK Ltd [1999] HT99000/99This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes The court will look at the subject of the reference to see whether the adjudicator has exceeded the terms of the reference but will give a fair, natural and sensible interpretation to his decision in the light of disputes that are the subject of the reference. The court should guard against characterising a mistaken answer to an issue that lies in the scope of the reference as an excess of jurisdiction. Dyson J, Technology & Construction Court 17 November 1999 D was the mechanical sub-contractor to B. The contract incorporated the CIC Model Adjudication Procedure (2nd edition). D began work on 15 April 1998, and B purported to determine the sub-contract on 8 July 1999. D issued its notice to adjudicate in August 1999 claiming sums for additional...
-
10th November 1999Homer Burgess Ltd v Chirex (Annan) Ltd [1999] CA137/99This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes An adjudicator does not have jurisdiction over parts of a contract that are not for construction operations" although other parts may fall within that definition and be within his jurisdiction. An adjudicator's decision on his jurisdiction is not binding on the parties. Lord MacFadyen, Outer House, Court of Session (Scotland) 10 November 1999 H entered into a contract with C to carry out works at C's site. Disputes arose in relation to the sums due in respect of invoices which C refused to pay. H therefore issued a notice of adjudication, and, as the contract contained no adjudication provisions, believed that the Scheme would apply (although there was a debate over whether the Scottish or English Scheme applied which was not pursued in court). H...
-
4th November 1999Linaker Limited v Riviera Construction [1999] Adj.L.R. 11/04
-
29th October 1999Lathom Construction Ltd v Brian & Ann Cross [1999] CILL 1568 LTL 10/1/2000This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes The court may not enforce an adjudicator's decision over a compromise agreement which is not a "construction contract." HHJ Mackay, Technology & Construction Court 29 October 1999 AB engaged L for certain building works under JCT. '81. Upon a dispute arising over payment of interim payments, an adjudicator was nominated, but the parties were able to reach a settlement which was put into writing before he gave any decision. AB then wrote to L and said that it was a precondition of the settlement that £5,000 was to be withheld for work still to be carried out by L. As these works were not carried out, AB withheld the money. L then took this further dispute to adjudication. The same adjudicator was nominated. L argued that the settlement...
-
6th August 1999Palmers Ltd v ABB Power Construction Ltd 1999 HT 99 0000 90This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes A contract can be partly for construction operations and partly for works not falling within that definition. Adjudication can only be sought for that part of the contract that is for construction operations. It is possible for the main contractor not to be entitled to seek adjudication when his subcontractor can. A notice to withhold must specify the amount withheld. HHJ Thornton QC, Technology & Construction Court 6 August 1999 P was a scaffolding sub-contractor appointed by A to provide scaffolding services at the site where A was assembling and erecting a HRSG boiler. P was a sub-sub-sub-contractor for part of a huge project involving plant to be used for power generation. A alleged that P had caused delay to its works, and purported...