C’s claim for damages for breach of contracts relating to the construction of a power station and the failure of foundations was rejected by HHJ Toulmin in the TCC. On appeal to the Court of Appeal, it was held that the burden on an appellant in an appeal against a finding of fact in a complicated technical case by a specialist TCC judge was hard to discharge: the more technical and complicated the facts, the harder the burden. The appeal was dismissed.
|
D2 and D3 were owners of land which incorporated a tree, the roots of which were causing damage to C1 and C2's adjacent property. The tree was subject to a Tree Preservation Order and D1 had refused permission to fell the tree. C1 and C2 sought a declaration of their entitlement to fell the tree on the basis that it was necessary for the prevention or abatement of a nuisance within section 198(6)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. D1, D2 and D3 maintained that felling could not be ...
|
Prior to 2003 the parties entered into a contract for the internal fit out of the Sheraton Hotel Spa Building. Following completion of the main works various defects, some of them substantial, emerged in the work that had been carried out. The most significant of the defects related to the external glazing around the spa area, where cracking had appeared. The parties disputed who was responsible for the cracking
|
Prior to 2003 the parties entered into a contract for the internal fit out of the Sheraton Hotel Spa Building. Following completion of the main works various defects, some of them substantial, emerged in the work that had been carried out. The most significant of the defects related to the external glazing around the spa area, where cracking had appeared. The parties disputed who was responsible for the cracking
|
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 ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |