E, the contractor, was engaged to do works under a PPP contract with S the local authority. Following discovery of asbestos in the works, E claimed declarations that the works were delayed and that it was entitled to postponement of work plus a claim for compensation. However, the judge held that, pursuant to the clauses of the PPP contract, E had failed to give sufficient notice to S. Notice was agreed to be a condition precedent to the right of E to claim compensation or relief. Further, such ...
|
The case concerned enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision where it was asserted by the resisting party, P, that there had been various issues referred that had not been in dispute at the time of the Notice of Adjudication. P, the employer, had given A, the contractor, a first notice indicating various aspects of work with which P was not satisfied. Following a second notice, P determined the contract and ejected A from site. The judge held that there had been a dispute about whether there were ...
|
The case considered whether the defendant builder, K, had been in repudiatory breach of contract or, alternatively, whether termination of the construction contracts by the claimants, S and T, in itself constituted repudiatory conduct. K had agreed to carry out construction works at three properties owned by S or T (T being a director of S). S and T had purported to terminate the contracts by way of the K’s alleged repudiatory conduct, and which included delay and defects. K had transferred his ...
|
In this Scottish case it was decided that a contractor who had been employed to construct a path leading to the top of some stairs on which the claimant fell was not liable for the loss suffered as a result of the fall. In 2004 the Health Board entered into a series of agreements with Impreglio relating to the construction and operating of a multi-storey car park in the grounds of the Glasgow Royal Infirmary. Impreglio in turn contracted with Laing to construct a path in the surrounds of the car ...
|
Fitzroy were engaged as the architects for the development of three buildings in London and Buckinghamshire. The Fitzroy team assigned to the project was led by Mr Blake. However, whilst it was estimated that the project would take around three years, Mr Blake had in fact tendered his resignation before Fitzroy’s appointment was concluded. This meant that he was available to the project for no more than the first year. The Court found that Fitzroy did not tell the client that Mr Blake was le ...
|
Costain was successful in establishing that Haswell had been negligent in the foundation design for a water treatment works. However, Costain failed in its claim for prolongation costs due to delay resulting from the need to redesign the foundations. Both programming experts agreed that some delay had occurred to the foundation works of the two structures due to the need to redesign. They also agreed that at the time of the delay, the foundation works were on the critical path of the project so ...
|
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 ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |