A had engaged R to carry out electrical works at her home and a fire had broken out during the course of the works. The fire had started in the loft after R had gone home (but whilst the property was vacant as A had moved out). A had claimed damages in an action in negligence. The first instance judge found that the fire had been caused by arcing from the festoon lights and that the cable had not been new (contrary to R’s evidence). As R had been in sole control of the property when the fire ...
|
Proceedings had been issued by C1 and C2 against three defendants, including D1 and two others. Following negotiations D2 and D3 were no longer parties to the litigation but not before technical expert reports had been instructed by them and disclosed to the other parties. C1 applied for permission to rely upon those reports at the beginning of the trial under CPR 35.11. D1 resisted this application on the basis that it was incumbent on the court to restrict expert evidence to that which was ...
|
Kajima was the main contractor employed to design and build a block of flats involving the novel application of installation of a stacked pre-constructed pod and flat pack construction. The Insurer provided professional indemnity insurance on a ‘claims made’ policy, under which it was open to Kajima during the period of insurance to notify the Insurer of circumstances which might reasonably be expected to produce a claim. During the course of the works, Kajima notified the Insurer that the pods ...
|
The Court of Appeal allowed in part Multiplex’s appeal against the decision of Jackson J in a preliminary issue hearing of one of a number of disputes arising out of the steelwork sub-contract. The preliminary issue was whether (as Multiplex argued) Cleveland Bridge (CB) was responsible for carrying out temporary works to support the roof of the stadium under the fixed price Supplement Agreement (entered into between the parties after disputes arose under the steelwork sub-contract), or whether ...
|
C had been appointed by D to carry out a concept plan for proposed construction works and to redesign the interior. C submitted a concept design and entered into two agreements, the latter of which required C to carry out the detailed design for the project and to project manage the proposed building works. The agreement provided that C's fees were to be paid in monthly instalments by reference to the anticipated progression of the programme of works but failed to provide for any variation to th ...
|
AXA brought a claim for professional negligence against loss adjusters, CL, in relation to the reinstatement of an old farmhouse, which had suffered subsidence for which AXA had accepted liability under a householder's policy. CL was retained by AXA to provide services in connection with that reinstatement. Whilst the original sum insured was just over £200,000, and the expectation when CL was involved was of a reinstatement cost of much less than £100,000, the eventual cost to AXA was said to ...
|
A Danish architect (D1), through his firm (D2) was engaged by an offshore company (C) owned by a Russian to design the refurbishment of a property in England. D3, D4 and D5 were Danish contractors engaged by C to carry out the refurbishment works. C issued a claim in the TCC for an account of moneys paid to the Defendants on the basis that the works were not completed, and claimed damages for defects in the design and construction of the works. The Defendants applied for a stay of the proceedi ...
|
At first instance an employment tribunal had upheld the issue of a levy assessment notice by the CITB. C, a service provider to the utilities industry which specialised in carrying out the rehabilitation of the water or distribution mains that made up the water distribution network, appealed this decision. The employment tribunal held that the water distribution network on which C worked was a pipeline for the purposes of the Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1992 and held it ...
|
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 ...
|
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 ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |