- 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.
-
23rd May 2014Lovell Partnerships Ltd v Merton Priory Homes [2014] EWHC 1615 (TCC)
-
15th May 2014Parkway Construction Ltd (In Liquidation) v Howard De Walden Estates Ltd [2014] EWHC 1533 (TCC)
-
8th April 2014Laker Vent Engineering Ltd v Jacobs E&C Ltd [2014] EWHC 1058 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Summary (1) Provided that it makes its position clear, a party to an adjudication can still rely on a general reservation of jurisdiction after publication of an adjudicator’s decision so that it can apply under the slip rule or make a payment without losing its right to challenge the adjudicator’s decision; (2) the word “site” in section 105(2)(c) of the Housing, Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (as amended) (“the Construction Act”) was given a broad meaning so that it applied not only to the immediate area where the works were to be carried out but also to a much larger area owned and occupied by the same party who was to derive benefit from the works. The works were therefore not...
-
4th April 2014University of Brighton v Dovehouse Interiors Ltd [2014] EWHC 940 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Summary In this case, the Court decided that, for the purposes of a conclusive evidence clause in the contract between the parties, adjudication proceedings were ‘commenced’ when the notice of adjudication was given, rather than when a referral notice was given to an adjudicator. The Court also held that as the Notice of Adjudication in question gave substantive and effective notice of the dispute being raised, incorrect identification of the body nominating the adjudicator and identification of and service at an address not specified in the Contract, were not sufficient to invalidate the Notice. Nor was the Notice invalidated by the fact that an adjudicator was subsequently appointed by an incorrect nominating body and had to resign....
-
14th February 2014Devon County Council v Celtic Bioenergy Ltd [2014] EWHC 309 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary In this costs-only judgment, the Court dealt with the parties’ respective liability for costs following an application to the Court for an injunction restraining an adjudication from going ahead and for declarations that the Adjudicator had no jurisdiction. Costs that were considered disproportionate to the importance and complexity of the application were reduced. Furthermore, it was decided that it would not be an abuse of the process for the Claimant to raise at a later date issues not resolved by the Court at the original hearing of the Claimant’s application. However, in view of the Court’s decision to allow the bulk of the adjudication to go ahead, these issues should only be raised if they remained unresolved after...
-
11th February 2014Viridis UK Ltd v Mulalley & Company Ltd [2014] EWHC 268 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary (a) An adjudicator did not have jurisdiction to decide a dispute which arose under more than one contract and his award could not therefore be enforced. (b) The decisions in Air Design v Deerglen, Camillin v Adelaide Jones and Supablast v Story Rail were authority for the proposition that an adjudicator can decide jurisdictional issues that are coincidentally part of the substantive dispute referred to him only if he is appointed under a contract as to the existence of which there can be no dispute. (c) An adjudicator had not breached the rules of natural justice in failing to deal with a discrete defence raised by the responding party. It was enough that in his award the adjudicator had made it clear that he had considered all of the documents...
-
7th February 2014Hillcrest Homes Ltd v Beresford and Curbishley Ltd [2014] EWHC 280 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary An adjudicator’s decision that an employer had made a negligent misstatement to the contractor regarding the novation of the structural engineer’s appointment and that the novation was void was unenforceable because (i) the adjudication clause only provided for “disputes under the contract” to be referred to adjudication, and made no mention of disputes arising “in connection with the contract” and a claim for misrepresentation/negligent misstatement was not a claim arising “under” a contract; (ii) two disputes had been referred to the adjudicator, which was outside the scope of the adjudication clause; and (iii) the adjudicator committed a material breach of the rules of natural justice...
-
7th February 2014Walker Construction (UK) Ltd v Quayside Homes Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 93This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-lawnow.com/adjudication SummaryWhere a party was seeking in legal proceedings to obtain by way of a set-off and counterclaim the repayment of a sum which it had previously paid pursuant to an adjudicator’s award it was incumbent on that party, as the party asserting its right to set off, repayment and/or damages, to plead and adduce evidence to prove its entitlement.Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Lord Justice Laws, Lord Justice McFarlane and Lady Justice Gloster:BackgroundIn December 2004, Walker Construction (UK) Ltd (“Walker”) were engaged by Quayside Homes Ltd (“Quayside”) to carry out drainage and highways works at Quayside’s residential development on land known as ‘Willowbank’. At the conclusion of the works, a dispute arose between...
-
24th January 2014Twintec Ltd v Volkerfitzpatrick Ltd [2014] EWHC 10 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes summary In this case the Court granted an injunction restraining an adjudication from proceeding. The adjudicator had been appointed pursuant to a provision that had not been incorporated into the agreement between the parties and the adjudicator therefore had no jurisdiction. Any decision he reached would be a nullity and no purpose would be served by the adjudication continuing. The claimant also argued that the adjudication was unreasonable and oppressive because it had been commenced at a time when complex High Court litigation was proceeding covering the same issues. The Court rejected this submission. Having regard to the statutory right to refer disputes to adjudication at any time, exceptional circumstances were required before...
-
23rd January 2014Wales and West Utilities Ltd v PPS Pipeline Systems GmbH [2014] EWHC 54 (TCC)This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Summary (a) In order to determine the scope of the dispute referred to adjudication, the Court must analyse the relevant exchanges between the parties. While it is open to a party to refer only part of a crystallised dispute to adjudication, the Notice of Adjudication must be used primarily to determine the extent to which only part of a claim is being referred. None of the post-notification documentation will alter the scope or ambit of the dispute referred. (b) A decision in an adjudication will not be rendered invalid simply because the decision in a previous adjudication (on which the later decision was based) is unenforceable. Essentially, the only grounds for challenging the enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision are “material breach...