The contractor (C) was engaged to install a sprinkler system in D’s car assembly plant. Under the contract, D was required to maintain joint names insurance of the existing structures and works against specified perils, but failed to do so. Prior to completion of the works, water escaped from a supply pipe on the sprinkler system. The Court held that C was entitled to recover compensation in respect of the loss arising from the escape of water because the D was required under the contract to ...
|
Reclaiming Motion - Construction of Contract
In this action the pursuers sought to recover £2 million with interest as damages for breach of a collateral warranty provided by the defenders on 18 June 1999. It was averred that the tenants, after taking occupation of the premises, experienced serious problems and difficulties with the floor slab. The pursuers claimed that the problems were the result of the defenders' failure to exercise reasonable skill and care in the performance of their duties under the Appointment. The defenders denied ...
|
The Court considered an adjudication enforcement case where the ground for resisting enforcement was the fact that the decision was reached out of time, an issue which has been the subject of much recent case-law. The parties had granted the adjudicator a 14 day extension of time for issue of the decision (to 3 April). Shortly before the decision was due, C provided responses to queries raised by the adjudicator. D sought further time to respond. The adjudicator agreed to give D a further tw ...
|
C entered into building contract with D, a residential occupier, to reinstate fire-damaged property. However, the works were effectively carried out under the direction of D’s insurer, who provided contract administration and surveying services. C suspended the works due to D’s non-payment. D alleged the works were defective and incomplete, and complained of delay. C succeeded against D in adjudication for outstanding sums but D refused to pay the sums awarded. Resisting enforcement proceed ...
|
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 ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |