D was the employer under a contract with C whereby C agreed to provide fire protection services for a new manufacturing plant. The contract required D to maintain insurance for the works in joint names against against specified perils including bursting of water pipes. A mains water pipe burst which was assumed to be as a result of C’s negligence. At first instance the court held that C was relieved of liability for any negligence because of the joint names insurance on the basis that one join ...
|
C was in business as a lessor of residential accommodation and had engaged D to damp-proof a property. Although D had recommended the application of a Sika coating he had actually applied render. Post works, C discovered that water had penetrated the property affecting a section of a party wall. C alleged he had sustained loss as D had left a gap in the render above the floor slab. D maintained that a screed had been laid down before the damp-proofing had been applied and that, by virtue of a c ...
|
D was a development company which had engaged C to carry out groundworks, including foundation works, and drainage works at two adjacent residential properties. One of the properties was owned by a director of company A. After completion of the works C claimed it was entitled to further sums. The adjudicator held that C was entitled to an additional sum of £14,126.91. A argued that summary judgment should not be granted as (1) the work carried out by E was not a construction operation; (2) i ...
|
D had engaged C to carry out demolition, piling and other works in respect of two buildings pursuant to a JCT Standard Form. The parties fell into dispute regarding C's entitlement to extensions of time together with related loss and expense. During an adjudication D argued that the losses claimed by C could not be recovered because they related to a later period than the period for which the extension of time was claimed. The adjudicator held that he was not bound by the same period when consid ...
|
The House of Lords gave its decision on s.111 withholding notices under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 in the context of the deduction of liquidated damages (LDs) under the JCT Standard Form of Building Contract 1998 edition. The issue for the House was whether an employer who served a withholding notice intending to deduct LDs from an interim payment was entitled to withhold LDs after an extension of time had been granted in advance of the final date for payment, i.e ...
|
D applied for a stay of Part 20 proceedings against it by C on basis of C’s non-compliance with the pre-action protocol for construction and engineering disputes. C argued that the protocol process was a waste of time because its claim against D was contingent on claims involving other defendants. Akenhead J held that the protocol applied to Part 20 proceedings. He held that the court should adopt a pragmatic approach to granting a stay, particularly where Part 20 proceedings were under conside ...
|
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 ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |