The Claimant was a design and build contractor retained by a building development company to redevelop a hospital. A wholly owned subsidiary of the developer had retained the Defendant consulting engineers to provide structural and building engineering services including major elements of the design of the works. Prior to the Claimant being retained, the Defendant and the Claimant had begun to liaise directly. Negotiations took place with a view to the Defendant’s contract with the developer bei ...
|
The contract between the parties provided that RIBA was the body responsible for nominating the adjudicator in the event of an adjudication. The Claimant’s solicitor telephoned a particular adjudicator that was on the RIBA panel to check his availability. The Claimant’s solicitor then wrote to RIBA inviting RIBA to appoint that specific adjudicator, which RIBA duly did. In resisting enforcement of the adjudicator’s decision, the Defendant argued that the adjudication was tainted by the appearanc ...
|
The Claimant sought disclosure of an incident report that had been prepared following an explosion at an oil storage terminal. The Claimant argued that the report would not attract privilege since the operator of the terminal had a duty to report about the explosion pursuant to the Control of Major Hazard Regulations 1999 and therefore the report had primarily been commissioned in compliance with the Regulations. The Court held that whilst there might be a duty to report under the Regulations, t ...
|
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 ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |