Appeal by main contractor (A) against determination of a preliminary issue. Respondent sub-contractor (R) was engaged by A to carry out M&E works on a hospital PFI project on basis of letter from A to R confirming that price of £34.25 million was agreed in principle. R commenced work on basis of short form orders from A limited to work up to value of £14 million: no formal sub-contract was ever entered into. Court at first instance held that R was under no obligation to complete the whole of the ...
|
These two cases, both decided by HHJ Coulson QC, concerned the principles upon which indemnity costs will be awarded. It was held in both cases that conduct must be unreasonable to a high degree to justify an award of indemnity costs, but it need not involve morally condemnatory conduct. In the former case, it was held that in exceptional circumstances a refusal to mediate might justify an order for indemnity costs, but in that case the failure to mediate was not the result of any unreasonable ...
|
An application for leave to appeal against an arbitrator’s award was dismissed where the appellant failed to surmount the substantial hurdles in Section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The legislative intent of Section 69(3) of the Act was to prevent parties seeking to dress up questions of fact as questions of law, and the evidence that was admissible on an application for leave to appeal was strictly limited.
|
C had sought enforcement of Adjudicator’s decision for payment of final account. Judge had held not enforceable on basis that the C’s contention that JCT contract had been concluded was incorrect. CA granted appeal by C and held that there was a JCT contract in place because tender invitation submitted by B’s quantity surveyor had provided that JCT form would apply and fact that two parties proposed that their agreement should be contained in a formal contract (which was not actually achieved) ...
|
Determination of preliminary issues in relation to C's claim for damages for breach of contract against D arising out of alleged defects in a paint spraying system designed, built and installed by D. D's breaches contract prevented substantial completion being achieved and no final acceptance test of the system was carried out. C took system over and operated it for several years and had also made payment to D notwithstanding provisions in the contract that D would not be entitled to payment. In ...
|
Appeal against decision that claim was statute barred.
|
D had instituted adjudication proceedings but subsequently abandoned them after both parties had incurred substantial costs. The Adjudicator ordered D to pay (1) the Adjudicator’s fees; and (2) C’s costs. Contract provided Adjudicator could, in his discretion, direct payment of legal costs and expenses "as part of his decision". C sought enforcement of Adjudicator’s order. Judge held that C was not entitled to its costs because (1) contract only provided for payment of legal costs if it was as ...
|
D retained C to carry out building works to convert former offices into residential flats. Contract was concluded orally but during performance of contract C wrote to D setting out understanding of contract, to which letter D responded in writing. C applied to enforce Adjudicator’s decision awarding payment by D. Judge held that there was not a written contract for purposes of s 107(2)(b) and the letters did not evidence the material terms of the agreement such that s 107(2)(c) did not apply.
|
C had retained D1 to carry out improvement works to a sewage works to enable Y to comply with revised effluent standards. D1 retained pursuant to design and performance contract. C maintained plant as designed and constructed was defective. D1 succeeded in defence to claim on basis that contractual performance test would have been satisfied had it been carried out. Permission to appeal sought on 19 grounds. Permission was refused because it would not be viable unless C was able to re-open Jud ...
|
Arbitration Act 1996. C sought (1) removal of arbitrator (s 24); or (2) setting aside of award (s 68). Judge held (1) s68 application could not be entertained because it was made outside time limit under s70(3) and it was not appropriate to extend time where C had been guilty of serious delays throughout arbitration; (2) C had lost right to object under s24 and s68 because C had not objected to conduct of Arbitrator at time (s 73); (3) s68 application also barred because C had not exhausted reco ...
|
| 1 2 |