C designed, constructed and operated energy plants and had agreed to provide energy services at D's new paper mill for a period of 15 years. Pursuant to the agreement C was to charge D an annual charge (comprising of a finance element aswell as the operational costs) which was payable in 12 monthly instalments. Clause 14.4 of the contract enabled C to terminate the contract if D was in material breach of its obligation to pay charges. D failed to pay 3 separate monthly instalments because it di ...
|
C sought to enforce two decisions by an adjudicator against 4 defendants who had, at various times, been trustee of an unincorporated association (“the Club”). The Club had purported to employ C to construct a sports complex. HHJ Coulson rejected Ds’ argument that the adjudicator had had no jurisdiction to reach either decision on the grounds that the proper defendants were each and every member of the Club. HHJ Coulson enforced the decisions against the 4 defendants on the basis that a trust ...
|
This was a trial of various preliminary issues, including whether the employer was entitled under the contract to appoint itself as the construction manager. Mr Justice Jackson held that a construction manager has a duty to be independent, honest, fair and impartial, and that he must perform his functions with reasonable skill and care to reach a decision which is fair and right, rather than a decision which favours the employer. This duty is not diluted by the presence of other professionals o ...
|
C was a water and sewerage undertaker which operated waste water treatment plants, one of which treated effluent from a brewery and another treated effluent from a milk processing plant. Case regarding the application of the Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000. The Court held :- (1) the 2000 Regulations were intended to apply to waste water treatment activities and also applied to sludge; (2) the distances between the waste water treatment plants and the bre ...
|
D engaged C under a contract for the carrying out of ground works. A dispute over various heads of claim was referred to adjudication, including an overtime claim based solely on a letter from D which was alleged by C to have been an instruction to accelerate. The adjudicator ordered D to make payments to C under each head of claim, finding in respect of the overtime claim that D had verbally instructed overtime or acquiesced in C working overtime. C issued proceedings in Scotland’s Court of Ses ...
|
Commercial/Construction
The pursuers seek payment of certain sums which were awarded to them by a decision of an adjudicator and which the defenders have refused to pay. In January the court heard an opposed motion by the pursuers for interim decree in respect of four of the awards made by the Adjudicator together with certain interest. This motion was granted. The remaining element of the Adjudicator's decision is in respect to of the pursuers' claim for payments in respect of overtime work. The defenders sought to re ...
|
C engaged D, a firm of architects, to design and manage the refurbishment of a department store. The refurbishment project considerably overran C’s budget as a result, C alleged, of D’s failure to perform its services with reasonable care and skill. HHJ Thornton QC gave judgment for C, finding that, at the commencement of the works, the design was insufficiently developed, and that D should have advised C to have the works carried out in two separate phases. It was also found that D failed to ...
|
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 ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 |