Appeal to Sheriff Principal
The sub-contract between the parties provided that the sub-contractor shall be liable for the cost of restoration of sub-contract work lost or damaged and replacement or repair of site materials for the sub-contract works except where such loss is caused by inter alia a specified peril. The definition of specified peril included "storm, tempest, flood". Here the dispute between the parties arises because the pursuers contended that the damage to the roof sheets was caused by "storm". The pursuer ...
|
C sought to enforce an adjudicator’s award against D. C and D had contracted on the basis of contract drawings and documents that made specific reference to various JCT clauses but the completion date and date of possession were left blank. The TCC refused to enforce the adjudicator’s decision on the basis that the contract was not a contract in writing within the meaning of section 107 of the Construction Act 1996. Whilst there had been an intention at the outset to enter into a contract on ...
|
The Court of Appeal held that a surveyor’s report on the physical condition of sloping development land prepared for the original landowner could be relied upon by a subsequent purchaser of the land (to whom the original landowner’s rights under the report had been assigned) in a claim against that surveyor for breach of contract in respect of damage caused by a landslip that had occurred between the sale of the land and the assignment. What had been assigned was a cause of action and the legal ...
|
C was the main contractor and D was the sub contractor in relation to a construction project. D had rendered a number of invoices which had not been paid by C and had therefore presemted a petition to wind up C. C applied to restrain the advertisement and/or strike out the petition. C maintained that it was entitled to withhold money owing to poor workmanship. C subsequently maintained that D was seeking to wind up the wrong company on the basis that the company which had entered into the con ...
|
C, a builder, had been contracted by D to carry out refurbishment works to D's house. The facts relating to the contract were such that C had submitted an estimate for the cost of the works with a list attached briefly describing the works. The parties had thereafter agreed orally that the works should proceed and during the course of the works D also gave instructions for additional items of work to be undertaken. C rendered interim invoices with lists attached detailing the work which had b ...
|
C applied for summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator’s award of £300k for liquidated and ascertained damages against D. D admitted it had no defence to the claim, but applied for an adjournment of the summary judgment hearing on the basis that it had brought separate proceedings against C to recover £200k due under the final account, in respect of which a summary judgment application was pending. HHJ Toulmin refused the application for a stay and enforced the adjudicator’s award on the bas ...
|
C applied to the court under section 45 of the Arbitration Act 1996 for the determination of a question of law arising in arbitration proceedings. The question of law was whether C, a construction company, had retained the risk of unforeseen structural works in a contract for the conversion of a derelict hospital. Jackson J held that the Court had a discretion whether to determine any question of law referred under section 45, and was not bound to determine that question. The Court exercised ...
|
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 ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |