D was engaged to carry out engineering works at a water treatment plant. C was a specialist engineering contractor sub-contracted by D to carry out some directional drilling work. C claimed that it had been delayed and disrupted in it works and that it was entitled to compensation under the sub-contract. However, no formal contract had been signed and a ‘battle of the forms’ argument arose. Whilst the case turns largely on its own facts, Akenhead J’s judgment reiterates that th ...
|
C was engaged to provide scaffolding at a property which D was developing. This engagement gave rise to disputes which were referred to adjudication and in which C was successful in obtaining an award for the payment of certain sums from D. A jurisdictional issue arose as to whether there was a contract in writing for the purposes of section 107 of the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 and whether D had made a clear and full reservation in respect of the adjudicator’s j ...
|
In a 2008 House of Lords decision relating to withholding notices, a Contractor claimed to be entitled to determine its JCT '98 Private with Quantities contract on the ground (amongst others) that the Employer had repeatedly failed to make payment of sums due under the contract by the final date for payment.
|
C was engaged by D on a JCT intermediate contract to carry out the mechanical services in the construction of an office building. Certain additional works were then agreed through a course of correspondence. Disputes arose as to whether C had completed the works, the amount due to C, and whether there were any remaining defects. C referred the disputes to adjudication. The adjudicator found that the works had been carried out as part of a single contract and ordered D to pay C the sum of £1 ...
|
Q commenced an adjudication against H seeking an increased payment because of a change to the scope of works. The adjudicator awarded Q £135,000. H argued for certain deductions amounting to £36,500. Davies J found that the adjudicator had wrongly refused to consider H’s deductions on jurisdictional grounds. Davies J went on to find that this mistake invalidated the entire decision. Whilst the court has no general power to modify or adjust an adjudicator’s decision, ...
|
D engaged C to carry out the design and construction of a shopping centre. The contract incorporated the JCT Standard Form of Building Contract with Contracted Design (1998 edition) with amendments. A dispute arose between the parties as to whether B had performed work that entitled it to additional payment. The dispute was referred to adjudication. The adjudicator found in C’s favour. C applied for summary judgment to enforce the adjudicator's decision. D applied for summary judgment on i ...
|
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 ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |