Supreme Court - Press Summary The Respondents, Barratt Homes Limited, were engaged in building a substantial development of homes and a primary school in Llanfoist, near Abergavenny in Monmouthshire. They sought to exercise the right of a property owner under s 106 Water Industry Act 1991 to connect the drains to the public sewer at a point close to the development. The appellant sewerage undertakers, Welsh Water, argued that it was entitled to insist on a connection at point some 300m furthe ...
|
This case concerned a dispute about whether, as a result of an adjudicator’s failure to consider allegedly relevant evidence, he had breached the rules of natural justice and thereby rendered the subsequent award unenforceable. The Court held that it was within an adjudicator’s jurisdiction to decide what evidence was admissible and, indeed, what evidence was helpful and unhelpful in the determination of the dispute referred to him. Even if the adjudicator’s decision to disregard evidence as ina ...
|
This case provides further guidance on the meaning of a “reasonable settlement” in cases where one party A seeks to recover from party C sums paid in a settlement to party B. The Court of Appeal held that because of its uncertainty and expense, prudent parties usually try to avoid litigation. The settlement value of a claim is not an objective fact but a matter of subjective opinion, taking into account all the variables. The Court only has to consider whether the settlement was within the range ...
|
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. ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |