Pursuant to the terms of a JCT Agreement for Minor Building Works C appointed D to carry out various building works to a building owned by C. After practical completion but during the defects liability period, the building suffered flood damage because a downpipe had been removed, but not replaced, by D during the works. C claimed damages for breach of contract and/or negligence. The first instance Judge held that C was not entitled to recover because it was obliged, by Clause 6.3B to insure ag ...
|
C was a port operator which had entered into a contract with D for strengthening works to a steel sheet pile quay wall prior to dredging. The contract was a lump sum contract based on the ICE conditions of contract. D had sub contracted the design work to H. During the course of the works the sheet piles were damaged and it was common ground that remedial works would be needed to enable the berth to be dredged. C alleged breach of contract on the basis that the works were not fit for purpose an ...
|
C obtained judgment in default against D for damages arising from a failure to undertake demolition and excavation works properly. D went into voluntary liquidation and its insurer under a public liability and Contractor’s All Risk insurance policy was joined to the proceedings and a claim under the Third Party’s Rights Against Insurers Act 1930 was added. The insurer defended the claim against it on the basis that D was in breach of the obligation to provide information and assistance, and he ...
|
The pursuers and the defenders were the employer and the contractor, respectively, under a building contract for the construction of a hotel at Finnieston Quay, Glasgow. The pursuers contended that the defenders were not entitled to any extension of time beyond the original contractual completion date of 20 August 1999. The first conclusion of the summons was for declarator that the Completion Date was 20 August 1999. The second and third conclusions were for payment of the total sum of liquidat ...
|
The employer, C, contracted D to build the M6 toll road. The contract contained a provision that various sums due were provisional sums. D contended that it was entitled to be paid the provisional sums without adjustment under the terms of the contract, and those sums added to the final contract price. Upholding the decision at first instance, the Court of Appeal held that the provisional sums should be omitted from the final contract price and the true amount added instead, because a provisi ...
|
C1 sought to challenge an adjudicator's decision regarding the absence of a dispute. D was a contractor which had been engaged by C1 to design and build the M6 toll motorway. Following amendments to the plans for the motorway D had presented a claim for the direct costs arising out of the change. D later submitted a second claim for indirect costs arising out of delay events (including the changed plans) and the costs of mitigation measures. D served notice of intention to refer their dispute ...
|
Jackson J determined a number of preliminary issues relating to various contracts that the defendant subcontractor had entered into with the claimant main contractor to design, fabricate and erect the steelwork at Wembley Stadium. C alleged that D had negligently constructed defective members for a steel arch at the stadium. It was held inter alia that there was no implied term in the subcontract that D should execute the works with such diligence and expedition as was reasonably required to m ...
|
Considering an application for summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator’s decision, Jackson J held that a slight delay in the issuing of the adjudicator’s decision was not fatal to that decision. He followed the cases of the TCC in Simon Construction Ltd v Aardvark Developments Ltd [2004] BLR 117 and Barnes & Elliot Ltd v Taylor Woodrow Holdings [2004] BLR 111 rather than the Scottish authorities (Ritchie Brothers (PWC) Ltd v David Phillip (Commercials) Ltd [2005] CSIH 32 and Aardmore Constru ...
|
A taxpayer, D, appealed against a ruling upholding the decision of the Inspector of Taxes, C, not to renew D’s construction industry certificate on account of significant delays in the payment of PAYE and national insurance contributions. D argued that its late payments should be regarded as “minor and technical” for the purposes of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 s.565(4) and, therefore, should not amount to a reason for refusal of the certificate. It was held that the construction in ...
|
A builder was found to be in breach of its duty to construct an extension to the flat roof of a residential home with reasonable care and skill because, whilst the builder had followed the drawings prepared by the homeowner’s architect, the builder had failed to spot a problem in the architect’s drawings. The builder should have advised the homeowner that the design for the roof extension was defective. The Court of Appeal found that an appreciation of what the plans provided and did not provi ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 |