This appeal concerned the status of a joint expert statement used in mediation. C issued proceedings in professional negligence against D, an architect. Proceedings were stayed for mediation. The Judge ordered the parties to instruct experts to prepare a joint statement for the mediation. The experts removed from the final version of the joint statement a proviso that the statement was without prejudice. The mediation failed, and D sought to use the joint statement in the subsequent proceed ...
|
The Court enforced an adjudicator’s decision notwithstanding (a) the referral notice was served one day late and (b) the adjudicator communicated his decision 12 hours after expiry of the time available for reaching the decision. Judge Coulson emphasized the importance of compliance with adjudication timetables because “the essence of adjudication is speed”; but on a “sensible and commercial” construction of the relevant clause of the contract between the parties found that the referral notice ...
|
This appeal overturned the enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision. C had employed D to carry out renovations to a mansion. Completion of the works was delayed; D made two unsuccessful applications by letter to the architect for an extension of time. D referred the dispute to adjudication. The adjudicator found that D had failed to establish entitlement to an extension of time on the basis of those letters. C subsequently commenced a second adjudication for liquidated and ascertained damag ...
|
A non-party costs order was made against the professional indemnity insurers of an insolvent firm of architects on the basis that the insurers had funded and directed the architect’s unsuccessful defence against a claim in professional negligence in their own interests. This decision is notable because it is rare for non-party costs orders to be made against insurers, and the House of Lords has previously ruled that such orders can only be made in exceptional circumstances. Central to the cour ...
|
C was engaged by D to design, construct and complete a residential development pursuant to a written contract which provided, inter alia, for (1) interim payments; and (2) determination of C's employment in the event that a receiver was appointed in relation to C. After commencement of work, C submitted an application for payment on 2 May 2003. D's agent certified approximately £400,000 as being due and payment fell due on 16 May 2003. D did not serve any withholding notice and also failed to ...
|
C appealed against D's decision that supply of works to replace the balcony of a listed building were standard rated for VAT purposes. The balcony had been demolished as an emergency measure because it was unsafe and was replaced with a replica. Held that the works properly construed amounted to repair or maintenance because the changes were not fundamental or radical and the works therefore fell outside the scope of schedule 8, Group 6 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994.
|
The High Court of Australia affirmed the general rule that an employer is not vicariously liable for the torts committed by an independent contractor it has employed. The independent contractor was a mechanic engaged by D, a service company responsible for the maintenance of a fridge in a convenience store. The door of the fridge had come loose, causing injury to C.
|
Appeal under section 82(4) of the Local Government
This was an appeal by the assessor for Grampian under section 82(4) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 against a decision of the Valuation Appeal Committee for Moray dated 15 November 2005. It arose from the assessor's decision to alter the Valuation List in relation to a house at 81 Highfield, Forres by transferring it from valuation band C to band D with effect from 10 August 2001. The former owner of the house appealed to the Committee on the ground that the alteration should have been ...
|
In this decision, guidelines were set out for the circumstances in which a notice of determination given by a contractor under ss. 28.2.4 and 28.2.5 of the JCT 1998 Private with Quantities standard form will be found to be ‘unreasonable or vexatious’.
|
In an action arising out of building works to a property and a subsequent adjudication, C argued that the adjudicator had no jurisdiction to deal with the dispute because inter alia the referral notice was served out of time, being provided 8 days (rather than 7 days) after the notice of intention to refer. HHJ Coulson QC followed the recent decisions of the Scottish courts relating to adjudicators’ decisions served out of time (e.g. Ritchie Brothers plc v David Phillip Commercials Ltd [2005] B ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |