Vision sought a declaration that the decision of an adjudicator was null and void for want of jurisdiction. Vision argued that the Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998 provides that any request to a nominating body should follow the giving of a notice of adjudication. However, in the present case, Lancsville’s request to the nominating body had preceded the notice of adjudication. Vision argued that this invalidated the adjudicator’s decision. The Judge agreed. ...
|
Adonis applied for summary enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision. Prior to the works being carried out, Adonis had sent O’Keefe a draft sub-contract order which stated that an official order would be submitted in due course. O’Keefe alleged that it did not receive the draft order until after it commenced the works. Additionally, O’Keefe never signed the draft order. The Judge held that the draft order did not amount to an offer. The use of the word “draft” indicated that the terms were the te ...
|
This case concerns the application of the HGCRA 1996 to certain types of project. The Act applies to “construction contracts” which is broadly defined to include most contracts for construction or engineering works, and can also include design or consultancy work for such projects. However, the Act applies only in limited respects to energy and utilities projects. Section 105(2)(c)(i) of the Act excludes “assembly, installation or demolition of plant or machinery, or erection or demolition of ...
|
This case dealt with the nature and date of accrual of the cause of action for challenging an adjudicator’s decision. The claimants argued that the cause of action arose out of the adjudication decision itself. The defendants claimed it arose from the original breach of contract. The question was material in this case as six years had passed since the original breach of contract, and therefore the time limit under the Limitation Act 1980 for bringing a claim in contract had passed. The judge ...
|
This recent case centred on whether certain works carried out at two coal fired power stations fell within the ambit of the Construction Act. A E & E Lentjes UK Ltd ("AEE") sub-contracted certain works to North Midland Construction plc ("NMC"). The parties entered two contracts for each power station – one for enabling works and one for civil works. The enabling works consisted mainly of preparatory works, such as securing the site, constructing temporary roads, and i ...
|
This case concerned a “pay when paid” clause. Such clauses are forbidden by section 113(1) of the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 unless it can be shown that the third party employer is insolvent. Hare were engaged by Shepherd to fabricate and erect steelwork at a development in Wakefield. There was an express term of the contract, clause 32, which was in similar terms to the 1996 Act and defined the employer’s insolvency by reference to four alternate situations (1) an adm ...
|
This case concerned pipelines drilled into an oil and gas reserve under property belonging to the claimant company (which was owned by Mohammed Al Fayed). The defendant had been granted a petroleum production licence under the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934. This permitted the defendant to drill down and extract the petroleum. The pipelines crossed the boundary of the claimant’s property at around 800 feet below the surface and terminated at between 2,300 and 2,800 feet. The Court held that the ...
|
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 ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |