C was the purchaser of a new home from D, a housebuilder. In breach of the contract (which required the house to be built in a good and workmanlike manner) a number of defects appeared in the year after purchase. Liability for the majority of the defects was accepted by D and some payments were made to C; D also indicated that it was prepared to remedy the defects but C subsequently refused to allow C to do so. Subsequently there was a delay in any action being taken and C claimed damages from ...
|
Applying the recent decision in Melville Dundas Ltd v George Wimpey UK Ltd (2007) 1 WLR 1136 (the first Construction Act case to reach the House of Lords), HHJ Coulson QC found that cl.27.6.5.1 of the JCT Standard Form of Building Contract, 1998 ed. (which allows an employer not to pay a sum despite the absence of a withholding notice) complies with s.111 of the Construction Act.
|
C had been engaged to provide plant and labour on a hired basis for the purpose of controlling an outbreak of Classical Swine Fever. C originally claimed the outstanding balance of payments that were alleged to be due under a contract entered into between and a government department. The Court had considered 2 preliminary issues and had determined (i) that "reasonable notice" for taking any specific piece of plant off hire from the D to C was seven days notice in writing; and (ii) the rates for ...
|
C had been engaged to provide plant and labour on a hired basis for the purpose of controlling an outbreak of Classical Swine Fever. C originally claimed the outstanding balance of payments that were alleged to be due under a contract entered into between and a government department. The Court had considered 2 preliminary issues and had determined (i) that "reasonable notice" for taking any specific piece of plant off hire from the D to C was seven days notice in writing; and (ii) the rates for ...
|
C had engaged D1 to rewire C's property. D2 assisted D1. D1 and D2 installed temporary festoon lighting in the loft to enable them to see whilst carrying out the works and C vacated the property. In the early hours of one morning, a fire was ignited; the seat of the fire was in the loft. C’s case was that it was more likely than not that the effective cause of the accident was an act or omission of D1 and D2 given that they were had sole control of the property. Expert evidence suggested that ...
|
C had engaged D1 to rewire C's property. D2 assisted D1. D1 and D2 installed temporary festoon lighting in the loft to enable them to see whilst carrying out the works and C vacated the property. In the early hours of one morning, a fire was ignited; the seat of the fire was in the loft. C’s case was that it was more likely than not that the effective cause of the accident was an act or omission of D1 and D2 given that they were had sole control of the property. Expert evidence suggested that ...
|
The main contractor (C) engaged D under a fixed price sub-contract for building works. During the works, C requested that D omit some of the works originally tendered for. Upholding the decision at first instance, the Court of Appeal held that C was obliged to pay D the full contract sum because the subcontract had been a fixed price contract and there was no term allowing a reduction in price where D had performed less than the tendered works at the request of C.
|
C was a main contractor which had sub contracted external cladding works to D. D had sought to refer a dispute regarding payment to adjudication, which was rejected by the adjudicator who found in C’s favour. D commenced Court proceedings against C. C applied to stay those proceedings on the basis that there was a binding adjudication agreement in the sub contract and the proceedings issued related to a different dispute to that which had originally been referred to adjudication. The Court g ...
|
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 ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |