- 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.
-
17th October 2007Hadden Construction Ltd v Midway Services Limited [2007] ScotSC 58
-
9th July 2007Stirling v Westminster Properties Scotland Ltd [2007] ScotCS CSOH_117
-
25th April 2007Melville Dundas Ltd v George Wimpey UK Ltd (Scotland) [2007] UKHL 18This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes A provision in the 1998 JCT Building Contract providing that, once a “final date for payment” of a sum had passed, the sum could retrospectively cease to be due for payment has come under scrutiny by the House of Lords. A bare majority reached the conclusion that the provision did not contravene the HGCRA. In addition, the absence of a withholding notice under s.111 did not prevent the employer from withholding payment.Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Mance and Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury - House of Lords BackgroundGeorge Wimpey Ltd (“Wimpey”) contracted with Melville Dundas Ltd (“the contractor”) for the construction of a housing development in Glasgow. ...
-
6th February 2007Castle Inns (Stirling) Ltd t/a Castle Leisure Group v Clarks Contracts Ltd [2007] CSOH 21This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes This Scottish case looked at the meaning of “dispute or difference” in the context of an adjudication. The court held that the dispute referred to an adjudicator should normally be identified by reference to the claim that had been made by one party and rejected by the other. It was the totality of the claim rather than its constituent parts that was referred to adjudication. Lord Drummond Young – Outer House, Scottish Court of Session BackgroundCastle Inns appointed Clark to carry out certain construction works on their nightclub. Certain disputes arising between the parties were referred to adjudication, including, in Adjudication No.2, a dispute referred by Castle Inns over liquidated damages due as a result...
-
7th September 2006Melville Dundas Ltd v. Hotel Corporation Of Edinburgh Ltd [2006] ScotCS CSOH_136This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes In this case, the court drew a distinction between settlement agreements that are independent of an underlying construction contract and settlement agreements that merely determine sums that are due under a construction contract. Withholding notices under the HGCRA need only be given in the latter case.Court of Session, Outer House, ScotlandLord Drummond YoungHotel Corporation of Edinburgh Limited (“HCEL”) are the owners of the Sheraton Hotel in Edinburgh. Melville Dundas Limited (“MDL”) are building contractors, who were employed by HCEL to carry out the internal fit out of the Sheraton Hotel. Following completion of the work by MDL, various defects emerged in the work that had been carried out. The most significant of these...
-
23rd May 2006Balfour Beatty Ltd v Gilcomston North Ltd [2006] ScotCS CSOH_81
-
29th December 2005Castle Inns (Stirling) Ltd v Clark Contracts Ltd [2005] ScotCS CSOH_178This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP. For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes S.108 of the HGCRA provides that an adjudicator’s decision is binding pending final determination of the dispute by legal or arbitral proceedings. In this case, the court held that liability for the adjudicator’s fees and expenses did not constitute a “dispute” for the purposes of the HGCRA and therefore any decision by the adjudicator on fees did not relate to a dispute capable of being finally determined by the court. The legal basis for repayment of any sums following final determination of a dispute would be pursuant to an implied term for the purpose of giving business efficacy to the contract.Lord Drummond Young - Outer House, Court of SessionBackground Castle appointed Clark to carry out certain works. ...