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.
|
This was a case concerned with solicitors’ negligence, but the findings on what constitutes “knowledge” for the purposes of section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980 are likely to have wide application in the law of negligence of construction professionals. Their Lordships held that “knowledge” meant knowing with sufficient confidence to justify embarking on the preliminaries to the issue of a claim; and that knowledge that damage was “attributable” in whole or in part to the defendant’s acts or o ...
|
Challenge to Arbitrator's award under s 69(2)(b) of Arbitration Act 1996 on the basis that award was made in excess of jurisdiction. C also challenged the award of interest. Underlying contract had been for the construction of a dam in Lesotho and had provided for payment to contractors in Maloti. The value of Maloti had plummetted between the time when C should have made payment under the contract and the date of the Arbitrator's award and the Arbitrator awarded payment in the currency of the c ...
|
| 1 |