Commercial action. Pursuers were developers of Braehead Retail and Leisure Development. The development included a lease to Odeon Cinemas for a “multiplex” cinema containing 12 auditoria. The pursuers contracted with the first defenders for building works to be carried out. Further, Odeon Cinemas own contractors were to carry out “tenant works” throughout the development. The defenders’ motion was to allow a counterclaim and to grant warrant to serve third party ...
|
A letter of intent sent by D to C referred to the parties’ intention to enter into a JCT Intermediate contract. The letter of intent also stipulated, amongst other things, a commencement date, a completion date and a cap on any reimbursement that D would have to pay to C in the event that it was not possible for the parties to execute a formal contract in place of the letter. C signed and returned the letter of intent and commenced the works. Thereafter delays occurred and D sought to terminate ...
|
This was a dispute about the interpretation of a policy of reinsurance to which D had subscribed. The policy was described in a slip as a construction all risks policy which covered the testing and commissioning of certain plant. C emailed D seeking clarification about the coverage and querying whether it needed additional cover because there was to be a gradual handover of parts of the plant as testing and commissioning were completed. An amended slip was issued and the reference to operational ...
|
An arbitrator was appointed by the RICS to act in a dispute under the National House Building Council Buildmark Scheme. C argued that the arbitrator did not have jurisdiction as the disputes procedure under the Scheme was insufficiently certain to amount to a binding arbitration agreement under the Arbitration Act 1996. In the alternative, C argued that the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, and not the RICS, was the appointing body under the Scheme. The Court held that the Scheme regulated the ...
|
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 ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |