This case concerned the interpretation of payment terms of a sub-contract in light of ss.109 to 113 of the HGCRA 1996, with which they were intended to be consistent. C was D’s concrete works package sub-contractor for the construction of the New Wembley National Stadium. A dispute arose over the valuation of the sub-contract works. C issued a claim in the TCC for further payment under the subcontract of over £17m; D alleged that C’s works were incomplete and defective. In the meantime, D re ...
|
D was the main contractor for the design and construction of Wembley sports stadium. C was appointed as a sub contractor and its sub contract required applications for payment to be made following an inspection by D of the work completed. If the amount due was not agreed C could issue an application following which D could issue a payment certificate for the amount that it considered to be due. During the course of the works C submitted an application for payment which was rejected by D which ...
|
The Court of Appeal overturned a decision at first instance to strike out a claim on the basis of abuse of process. D had been retained as engineering consultants on a contract to construct stores for C and B (and had provided warranties as to proper performance of its obligations). The stores suffered subsidence causing damage. C brought a claim against the building contractor (X), and when X went into administration joined D as Part 20 Defendant. B also brought a separate claim against X t ...
|
C brought an application for summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator’s decision. D objected (as it had during the adjudication proceedings) on the basis that the adjudicator had no jurisdiction because the contract was not in writing (a letter of intent having been issued). However, it was found that D had not reserved its position on jurisdiction during the adjudication proceedings, and in particular when issuing its submissions in writing on jurisdiction to the adjudicator. In the absenc ...
|
C applied for summary judgment and for indemnity costs following C obtaining an adjudicator’s award in its favour against D. D had challenged jurisdiction but these submissions had been rejected by the Adjudicator. In awarding summary judgment and indemnity costs the Court held (1) there was no jurisdictional bar to the application for summary judgment – D had not reserved its position during the adjudication viz the adjudicator’s determination of whether he had jurisdiction and the adjudicato ...
|
Pursuant to a construction contract D had agreed to carry out preliminary ground work on C's site. D delayed carrying out the works. D rendered a number of invoices some of which were paid but a number of which were not. D issued a statutory demand in respect of the outstanding invoices. C contended it had incurred additional financing charges as a result of D’s delays which it was entitled to recover from D and which, once offset, reduced D's claim to nil (and meant that C was owed money). C ...
|
D had engaged C to carry out extensive refurbishment works at his home pursuant to a construction contract that incorporated the JCT Standard Form of Prime Cost Contract (1998 Edition with Amendments 1 and 2). C was paid £14 million but maintained that a further £1.5million was outstanding (of which £634,000 was for work carried out after completion). C maintained that these works had been oral variations to the contract. The dispute was referred by C to adjudication and the adjudicator held ...
|
D had employed C to carry out works at its premises subject to an amended JCT standard form of building contract with contractor's design 1998 edition, incorporating amendments 1 to 5. C had submitted a final account which was for a sum in excess of the original contract value and was disputed by D. A year later C submitted an interim application for a net sum which gave detailed explanations as to the basis upon which the claims for payment were being made. Six weeks later D responded with a ...
|
C (consulting engineer) brought claim for outstanding fees. D applied for a stay for non-compliance with the pre-action protocol on grounds that C had not set out its case properly in the pre-action correspondence. The Judge held that C did not comply with the requirements of the protocol and that the contractual basis of C’s claim remained obscure until issue of proceedings. The Judge in the exercise of his discretion ordered that there be a stay of three months to enable compliance, on grou ...
|
C engaged D2 to carry out refurbishment works on her property. C became concerned about delay to the works and refused to pay outstanding sums. C claimed damages from D1, the proprietor of D2, claiming that no binding contract had been agreed; D2 counterclaimed for the outstanding sums. Each alleged the other had repudiated the contract. It was held that C had entered into two binding contracts with D1 and D2; C had repudiated the agreements by failing to pay sums due. However, D2 was not en ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |