The claimant owned property which was damaged by an explosion caused by a gas leak. The leak was from a gas booster manufactured by the defendant. The defendant had been notified of three previous incidents in other premises involving boosters of the same design where the casing had cracked. After the third incident the defendant issued new product information notices advising regular inspection to ensure that the bearings supporting the shaft in the booster were in good condition. However, ...
|
The claimants were civil engineers employed by the defendants to carry out construction work on highways in London. There was a final account dispute following completion of the work. Two adjudications followed. In the first, the adjudicator awarded £1.8 million to the claimant. In the second, the adjudicator made a declaration that the Sub Contract works, allowing for contra charges, should be valued at £23.3 million, requiring repayment of at least part of the award in the first adjudicati ...
|
A property was built with defective foundations. The owner of the property claimed against the builder and the structural engineer who had advised on the depth of the foundations. The Court found that the structural engineer had been professionally negligent in respect of advice given about the required depth of the foundations. As a result, the builder had failed to build the house in accordance with NHBC Standards of Construction and was found to be in breach of contract and the Defective Prem ...
|
The main contractor for the new Wembley Stadium (Brookfield, formerly Multiplex) attempted to rely on a clause requiring the Architect to give it access to its personnel so that it could carry out a fully and systematic review of the Architect’s services. The Architect refused; it argued that the operation of the clause ceased upon the completion of its services and argued that those services were already complete. Coulson J disagreed with the Architect. He found that the obligation continued af ...
|
The Claimant claimed monies for installing electrical works at a house being built by the Defendant. The Claimant and the Defendant were friends. A figure of £15,000 was mentioned in discussions although little was put in writing. The Claimant then issued an invoice which stated that he would send the Defendant “a full job costing so that we don’t go over budget”. The dispute was whether the £15,000 was a figure agreed as a fixed price contract or whether it wa ...
|
The Claimant had been successful in obtaining an adjudicator’s decision in its favour and applied for summary judgement, the sum not having been paid by the Defendant. However, the Claimant was subject to a company voluntary arrangement (“CVA”). The issue before the Court was whether the Claimant should be granted summary judgement or whether there should be a stay of enforcement because there were concerns that the Claimant would be unable to repay the sums awarded to i ...
|
The Claimant, a contractor, made a summary judgement application for enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision. The Defendant agued that there was no crystallised dispute in relation to the claim because the claim was based on new expert evidence which had only been presented during the adjudication. Therefore, the Defendant argued, the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction. The Defendant also argued that the volume of new evidence was such that it did not have a fair opportunity to respon ...
|
Dalkia sought a declaration under CPR Part 8 that the adjudicator to an ongoing adjudication between the parties lacked jurisdiction. Bell argued that the Part 8 proceedings were inappropriate because there was an issue of fact as to whether some of Dalkia’s terms and conditions were were received by Bell in April or May 2007. Coulson J stated that the TCC’s procedure should be flexible enough to avoid the result that one issue, in connection with an almost entirely irrelevant ...
|
The Hotel had engaged Vivid to carry out a refurbishment of its premises. Vivid then commenced an adjudication on a final account claim. The Referral Notice was accompanied by 37 level arch files and two expert reports. An extension to the 28 day adjudication period was agreed but the Hotel alleged that the timetable was too tight with the result that there was a very real risk of a breach of natural justice. The Hotel sought a declaration to the same effect by way of CPR Part 8 proceedin ...
|
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 ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |