This case was the first occasion on which the House of Lords considered the adjudication provisions of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (“the Act”). Their Lordships held that on the construction of the contract the employer was entitled to withhold any payment whatever and (adopting a purposive approach to s. 111 of the Act) that there was no conflict with s. 111(1) of the Act. Their Lordships commented that the purpose of the notice requirement in s. 111 of the Act w ...
|
A was the employer under a JCT Standard Form of Building Contract with Contractor's Design (1998 edition) and R was contractor. The contract provided for interim payments on a monthly basis based on an application for payment being made by R. On 2 May 2003 R applied for an interim payment; no withholding notice was served and the payment fell due on 16 May 2003. A failed to make payment and on 22 May 03 an administrative receiver was appointed in respect of R. On 30 May 2003, A determined th ...
|
C, a printing company, contracted with D, an engineering company, to construct adequate foundations to bear the weight of a printing press before it intended to move into new premises. The terms of the contract required D to complete the works within a period of 10 days. D was delayed in the completion of the works and admitted that it was in default in failing to complete in that time. C claimed damages for delay; D disputed causation and quantum. C was successful in recovering (i)damages f ...
|
Shortly prior to a stay for mediation, D sought a costs order due to C’s failure to comply with the pre-action protocol. The claim was issued in February 2006 and served in June 2006, nearly two years after the last communication with the Defendant, and without any claim having been intimated to the Defendant. Mr Justice Ramsey found that there had been a serious breach of the pre-action protocol. The claim came within paragraph 6 of the pre-action protocol because there were potential limitat ...
|
C engaged D under a JCT DOM/2 sub-contract to design and install the electronic systems at the new Wembley stadium. D’s works fell into delay; D sent notices of delay to C and requested an extension of time. C rejected the notices for non-compliance with a condition precedent of the sub-contract, but later issued revised programmes. A dispute arose over whether time had become at large because the sub-contract period had been replaced by an obligation to complete the works within a reasonable ...
|
R was the tenant of a warehouse which had been designed by A, a firm of architects, and had been constructed in 1989/1990. During a period of heavy rainfall in 2002 the warehouse had flooded and it was agreed that this was attributable to inadequate drainage capacity in the design, for which A was responsible. A appealed from the decision of HHJ Thornton QC in which it had been held that (1) a flood 8 years earlier (when other tenants were in occupation) did not give rise to an obligation on t ...
|
D (the Employer) and C (the Contractor) had been a party to adjudication no. 1 in which C had argued that the contractual liquidated damages provisions were inoperable because the scope and value of the works in each sectional completion could not be ascertained. The adjudicator found against C. Following a second adjudication, which was compromised, C commenced adjudication no 3 in which it sought repayment of monies deducted as liquidated damages. D refused to take part in the adjudication ...
|
HHJ Havery QC held that an adjudicator had no jurisdiction to reach his decision out of time, following his recent decision in Epping Electrical Company Ltd v Briggs & Forrester (Plumbing Services) Limited [2007] EWHC 4 (TCC). HHJ Havery QC also struck down the Government (GC/Works) adjudication rules which applied to the contract in the present case for the same reasons he struck down the CIC Rules in Epping: namely, because those rules permitted an adjudicator to reach his decision out of tim ...
|
The Court of Appeal held that a judge had erred in awarding summary judgment enforcing an adjudicator’s decision, as there was a real prospect of establishing that the adjudicator acted without jurisdiction. The adjudication concerned a dispute over fees. It was held that the judge had erred in failing to consider (1) an oral agreement between the parties in relation to a cap on C’s fees; and (2) a deed of appointment between the parties that contained an express term that the Technical and Co ...
|
C applied for summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator’s award. The parties had both agreed to the adjudicator’s request for an extension of time for reaching the decision of 7 days. The adjudicator reached his decision within the 7 day extension, but refused to send the decision to the parties until he had been paid. His decision was finally released 2 days after expiry of the extension of time. It was held that D’s consent to the extension of time had been conditional on the decision bei ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |