- 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
Scotland Cases
This page shows all the Scottish 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.
-
27th June 2001SL Timber Systems Ltd v Carillon Construction Ltd [2001] ScotCS 167This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Even if one party has failed to give a timeous notice of its intention to withhold payment, the other party is still obliged to show that he is entitled to the sums claimed under the contract. In Scotland challenges to the enforcement of adjudicators' decisions on grounds of the receiving party's inability to repay the amount awarded in later proceedings are unlikely to be upheld. Lord Macfadyen, Outer House, Court of Session 27 June 2001 S sought to enforce an adjudicator's award for three sums under three contracts for the supply and erection by S for C of structural timber kits. (The form of contract used is not clear from the judgment, but it is clear that the adjudication provisions did not comply with HGCRA 1996 and therefore the Scottish...
-
26th June 2001Naylor (William) v Greenacres Curling Ltd [2001] Outer Ct of Session P514/01This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes The Court (in Scotland) may be prepared to grant interdict and suspension to prevent a void adjudication from proceeding. Where the remedy of interdict and suspension is sought, the Court of Session is being asked to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction and the application must therefore be made by way of petition for judicial review. Lord Bonomy, Outer House, Court of Session 26 June 2001 P entered into a contract with G to lay and finish a concrete surface at an ice rink. The provisions of the Scottish adjudication Scheme applied to that contract. P completed the works and rendered an invoice. G refused to pay on the basis that the concrete supplied did not comply with the contract specification. In the first adjudication initiated by the petitioners,...
-
21st June 2001Ballast Plc v Burrell Ltd [2001] P336/01This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes Where an adjudicator appointed under section 108 of the HGCR Act 1996 decided the dispute was incapable of resolution by adjudication as the parties had departed from the terms of a JCT contract, he acted outside his jurisdiction and his decision was a nullity. Lord Reed, Outer House, Court of Session 21 June 2001 BC employed B to act as management contractor for a project under a standard JCT form of management contract. A dispute arose between the parties and it was referred to adjudication under section 108 of HGCR Act 1996. The provisions contained in Part I of the Schedule to the Scheme for Construction Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 1998 (the adjudication provisions) had taken effect as implied terms of the contract. The adjudicator gave...
-
15th June 2001Barr Ltd v Law Mining Ltd [2001] ScotsCS 152This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes The Court will enforce part only of an adjudicator's decision where it finds that another part of that decision has been made in excess of the adjudicator's jurisdiction and that part is easily severable from the part made with jurisdiction. Lord MacFadyen, Outer House, Court of Session 15 June 2001 B sought to enforce by decree (judgment) two adjudicators' awards made in its favour. The two adjudications arose from related construction contracts for road improvement works on the A76 and for the construction of a new access road. In both adjudications, the adjudicator decided in favour of B and B sought summary decree for payment of those awards on the basis L had no defence. L sought to show that the first adjudicator had acted beyond his jurisdiction,...
-
13th June 2001Mitsui Babcock Energy Services Ltd [2001] ScotsCS 150This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes In determining "construction operations" under s105(2)(c) HGCR Act 1996, the adjudicator should look at whether the object of the "construction operation" was to further the activities described in s105(2)(c). Lord Hardie, Outer House, Court of Session 13 June 2001 In September 1999, M and the first respondent (FWE) entered into a contract. FWE was required to deliver prefabricated equipment and piping to the site; M was to assemble the equipment into two complete boiler plants on land within a petrochemical complex operated by a BP company at Grangemouth. The boilers were constructed on behalf of and operated by CHP who was contracted to sell the steam to BP. In July 2000, M issued a Notice of Adjudication concerning FWE's alleged failure to pay...
-
13th March 2001Watson Builders Service [2001] ScotCS 60This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes An Adjudicator has the power to determine the meaning of the sub-contract terms even if this results in him determining a dispute about the validity of his appointment and therefore his jurisdiction. Lady Paton, Outer House Court of Session (Scotland) 13 March 2001 W were appointed as main contractors to carry out building works at a church in Glasgow. They entered into a sub-contract with the second respondents, Miller (Preservation) Ltd, in respect of rot eradication. The sub-contract documents comprised a quotation dated 2 February 1999 and counter-offer dated 24 April 1999. The parties agreed that the sub-contract was a "construction contract" within the meaning of s104 of the HGCRA. A dispute arose in relation to the sub-contract work. Miller...
-
21st December 2000Karl Construction Ltd v Sweeney Civil Eng. Ltd [2000] ScotCS 330This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes The adjudicator is not fettered, when applying the relevant law, by the parties' representations: it is open to the adjudicator to reach a conclusion different from that agreed by the parties. A failure by the adjudicator to seek further representations from the parties before reaching a conclusion different from their agreed position is not necessarily a breach of the rules of natural justice. Extra Division, Inner House, Court of Session Lord Marnoch, Lord Dawson, Lord Clarke 22 January 2002 The petitioners (K) brought a reclaiming motion against the dismissal by the Lord Ordinary of a petition for judicial review of an adjudicator's decision under the HGCR Act 1996. The facts of the case and decision by the Lord Ordinary are set out on page...
-
23rd June 2000Stiell Ltd v Riema Control Systems Ltd [2000] Inner Ct of Session X1/53/00This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes An arrestment may be made in court proceedings to freeze monies that an adjudicator has previously held are not due and owing. Such an arrestment is not oppressive Lord Prosser, Lord Philip and Lord Caplan, Extra Division, Inner House, Court of Session (Appeal from Sherriffdom of South Strathclyde, Dumfries & Galloway) 23 June 2000 This case concerns the issue of arrestment in Scottish proceedings. R instructed S to carry out supply and installation of control and electrical equipment. The contract contained an adjudication clause providing that the CEDR rules applied. In December 1999, S commenced adjudication proceedings concerning a valuation dispute, including valuation of additional work. In February, the adjudicator found that the total...
-
18th May 2000Strathmore B.S. Ltd v C.S.Greig [2000] Outer Ct of Session CA 19/00This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes A valid notice to withhold payment must be given in writing, and should not be served prior to the application for payment to which it relates Lord Hamilton, Outer House, Court of Session 18 May 2000 This case focused on the requirements of a notice to withhold payment under section 111 of the Act, under the standard form of contract, JCT Works Contractors Design 1998, Scottish edition. In this case, H had put forward a without prejudice offer in relation to monies outstanding to S. H claimed that liquidated damages and direct costs were due to it for the S's failure to complete on time. S ignored this offer, and submitted an invoice, which was accepted as their application for payment. H telephoned S's office and left a message with the telephonist...
-
12th July 1999Allied London & Scottish Properties Plc v Riverbrae Construction Ltd [1999] ScotCS 170This 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 consider all possible alternatives did not invalidate his decision. No lawful basis for postponing payment of sums awarded to referring party, including payment of award into joint deposit account. Lord Kingarth, Outer House, Court of Session (Scotland) 12 July 1999 R contracted to execute works for A under a number of construction contracts. R claimed payment under 4 of these, and payment was disputed. R therefore gave notice of its intention to refer these disputes to adjudication. The adjudicator conducted the adjudications as 4 separate proceedings, and made final decisions in each case that A pay R various sums under each contract within 14 days with interest. A sought judicial review of these decisions. A claimed...