C was granted the right to design, construct and operate the proposed M6 toll road by the DTI under a PFI agreement. C engaged D, a joint venture, to construct the road under a PFI building contract. The DTI issued a formal variation order under the PFI agreement. D made applications for interim payments in respect of the variation, but only partial payment was made. D commenced adjudication proceedings under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 in relation to the quanti ...
|
Appeal by C (main contractor) against dismissal of claim for damages against D (subcontractor) for repudiatory breach of contract in failing to complete subcontract design work within a reasonable time. It was found that substantial variations to the sub-contract had rendered fixed dates for completion inoperable, therefore the obligation was to complete within a reasonable time. Where time was not of the essence and D was making an effort to perform the contract, it was intrinsically difficult ...
|
D sought permission to appeal against decision enforcing adjudicator’s decision on basis that the adjudicator’s decision was outside his jurisdiction, breached rules of natural justice, gave inadequate reasons and that the adjudicator had no jurisdiction to award interest. Permission to appeal was refused on all grounds except that of interest. Court of Appeal held that the courts should enforce an adjudicator’s decision unless it was plain that he had not decided the question referred to him o ...
|
C engaged D to construct 28 flats on a site owned by C. The contract contained an option for D to take leases in respect of 7 of the 28 flats. C referred a dispute to adjudication: D commenced proceedings for a declaration that the contract was not subject to the right to adjudicate by virtue of Paragraph 6 of the Construction Contract Exclusion Order 1998 (S1 1998 No. 648), which excluded development agreements from the definition of construction contracts. HHJ Wilcox QC found that the granti ...
|
C and D were parties to a JCT Contract which incorporated an entitlement to refer disputes to adjudication. In the event of an adjudication the CIC rules would apply. An adjudicator was appointed to consider whether a withholding notice issued by D was valid and determined that it was. In a second (later) referral, the same adjudicator was asked to consider whether D was entitled to deduct liquidated and ascertained damages from various interim certificates. The adjudicator held that the wit ...
|
Applications under Section 72 of the Arbitration Act 1996. C appointed D to carry out refurbishment works. Works commenced on basis of letter of intent, which referred to the JCT contract. No formal contract was ever executed. C refused D’s applications for extensions of time. D gave notice of arbitration: C submitted that it was not party to any arbitration agreement with D as the terms of the JCT contract were never incorporated. Held that the effect of the letter of intent was to incorporate ...
|
C sought to set aside a number of Arbitration awards made in favour of D under s68 of Arbitration Act 1996 on grounds of serious irregularity. C relied on 2 grounds. Ground 1 was failure by D to disclose a deed of cession (whereby proceeds of its claims against C were ceded to one of its creditors) which C alleged amounted to a serious irregularity within s 68(2)(g) of the 1996 Act. Ground 1 was rejected on the basis that there was nothing unconscionable or inherently wrong about the cessions, a ...
|
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.
|
| 1 2 3 |