Mr Justice Akenhead refused an application by the applicant sub-contractor (Allen Wilson) for summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator's award made against the respondent main contractor (Privetgrange). Privetgrange had argued that the adjudicator had no jurisdiction as there had been no written construction contract with s.107 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. One of Privetgrange's arguments was that there was no written contract as s.107 required all of the ter ...
|
The Court of Appeal allowed the appellant contractor's appeal against a decision of Ramsey J in which he had held the appellant vicarious liable for the negligence of a third party sub-contractor. Ramsey J. had so held based on two principles: that a party could be vicariously liable for the “borrowed” employees of a sub-contractor over whom it exercised supervision, and alternatively under the principle that “ultra-hazardous” acts imposed non-delegable duties. Reversing both aspects of this d ...
|
The respondent landlord (London & Regional) had engaged a builder to carry out certain works. It agreed to incorporate into those works any variations requested by the appellant tenant (Ministry of Defence) provided that the tenant paid for the cost of those variations. A dispute regarding what was to be considered as a variation was settled as between the landlord and the builder, with the terms of the settlement agreement entitling the builder to proceed against the tenant in the name of the ...
|
Reisgold appealed against a decision of the lower court refusing to grant a declaration that it was entitled to enter the yard of an adjoining freehold property owned by Escala for 45 weeks for the purpose of carrying out proposed redevelopment works to its own property. When Reisgold purchased the property it acquired the right to enter Escala’s property and carry out “maintenance repair rebuilding or renewal”. The Court of Appeal held that the right of entry relied on by Reisgold covered its r ...
|
Brown (the contractor) gave Reinwood (the employer) notice that Reinwood had defaulted on a VAT payment due under an amended JCT Standard Form of Contract 1998 edition. The parties then agreed that Reinwood would pay a smaller amount than that originally claimed for VAT. Some months later, Brown gave Reinwood a second notice specifying a default in relation to a separate issue. Brown then served a notice of determination in respect of the second notice of default but did not mention the first de ...
|
The contractor, who had been successful at adjudication against the employer, sought a third party debt order from companies it though owed money to the employer. The Court declined to make the order because the contractor could not establish that the third parties actually owed money to the employer. The case sets out useful guidance for those seeking or defending such orders including the prejudice suffered to the third party and whether the judgment debtor is in liquidation.
|
CBUK was engaged by Multiplex to design, fabricate and erect the steelwork for the new Wembley Stadium. In August 2004 CBUK repudiated its contract (that issue having been determined as a preliminery issue in a previous trial). In this case Multiplex sought to recover the losses that it had incurred following the repduiation, which included the cost of employing an alternative contractor, and also losses incurred period of delay to the project. Jackson J concluded that Multiplex has not sufficie ...
|
An adjudication award was made in favour of C (a sub-contractor) against D (the main contractor) in relation to applications for payment that included a delay and disruption element (“the Delay Claim”) in relation to a 26-week overrun. D failed to pay and C commenced enforcement proceedings. D argued that the adjudicator had no jurisdiction to deal with the Delay Claim because (a) it was too nebulous and ill-defined to amount to a dispute, (b) C had withdrawn it prior to the adjudication, and (c ...
|
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 ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |