It was held that a notice of arbitration sent by D by email was validly served because it was received at the email address held out by C as C’s only email address, notwithstanding the relevant managerial staff had not received it. Clarke J held that a notice or document required to be served under an arbitration agreement could be given by any recognized means of communication (whether post, fax or email); if emailed, the notice had to be dispatched to the correct email address of the intended ...
|
D occupied a building which was accessed by a service road. Both the building and the road were constructed on a raft above a railway platform. D was party to an agreement with C whereby, in accordance with s.38 of the Highways Act 1980, C had agreed that it would undertake to maintain the road. In 2002 works were undertaken to the road which had involved the replacement of joints and plinths. C's argument, on appeal, that the works undertaken amounted to improvement works rather than mainten ...
|
C was the main contractor for substantial works to an office building and claimed damages from D, one of its subcontractors. During the Pre-Action stages, various other parties had been advised of the possibility of claims for contribution or indemnity being made and at the first CMC D was required to issue any Part 20 claims by 30/11/05. Directions for trial were given. At the second CMC C sought permissions to join one of the Part 20 Defendants as a Defendant to the main action. The Judge ...
|
C appealed an Arbitration Award on the basis that the Arbitrators' conclusions had been wrong in law. C and D were parties to shipbuilding contracts which included a term which provided for automatic rescission of the contracts in the event that certain conditions subsequent were not met, namely (i) agreement on the supplier of a main engine within a fixed period; and (ii) provision of a letter of guarantee in respect of a refund of pre-contract payments to D in the event that the contracts wer ...
|
Contractor submitted final account for civil engineering works in stages; provisional interim certificates were issued by the engineer. The employer disputed valuation in engineer’s final certificate. The employer contended the contractor’s claims under the final certificate were statute-barred at the date of final certificate. The dispute was submitted to arbitration: arbitrator decided that almost all the claims were statute-barred. Contractor appealed. The appeal was allowed in part: the ...
|
Arbitration appeal by C under Sections 69(2) and (3) of the Arbitration Act 1996 in respect of four shipbuilding contracts. Arbitrators found that no final agreement was reached between C and D. C appealed; D contended there was no permissible ground of appeal against the arbitrator’s decision because it was a question of fact, not law. Langley J found that the question of whether an agreement was concluded was a question of law or mixed fact and law, but a court should be reluctant to differ ...
|
Court of Appeal found that the judge had correctly held that a contract to provide a new roof required the work to be carried out in accordance with a detailed drawing of the roof provided for the purposes of obtaining a quotation for the work.
|
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 ...
|
| 1 2 3 |