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 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 |