Alstom applied for an interim injunction to restrain Eurostar from entering into a contract with Siemens for design, supply and maintenance of high speed trains. Alstom’s case was based on alleged breach of the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2006, general EU Treaty principles of equal treatment, transparency, proportionality and good administration and also breach of a tender contract between Alstom and Eurostar. Alstom’s allegations of breach centred i) on the uncertainty of the applicable reg ...
|
A contractor was entitled to summary judgment on its claim against its employer for payment where the parties had entered into a settlement agreement under which the contractor was entitled to payment for its work before it was required to remedy any alleged defects in that work and that agreement had not been varied. The court refused to grant a stay of execution as sought by CNM Estates. Akenhead J. was unsatisfied that Bewley would refuse or fail to put right the Agreed Defects and in any eve ...
|
This case concerned an application for summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator’s award made against the respondent sub-contractor, Holystone. The application was resisted by the Defendant on the grounds that the adjudicator had strayed from the agreed contractual procedure in allowing Volker to submit new material after the agreed deadline. Coulson J. held that the adjudicator had been entitled, indeed obliged, to make enquiries within a stated time and accordingly there had been no breach of ...
|
This case concerned a summary judgment application for enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision and, in particular, whether the decision was valid in light of an objection about jurisdiction from the responding party. Finding that the responding party had made maintained an effective reservation in relation to jurisdiction throughout the adjudication, the Court made provided the following guidance about how reservations as to jurisdiction should be made. First, there could be an express agreemen ...
|
This case concerned a summary judgment application for enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision and, in particular, whether the decision was valid in light of an objection about jurisdiction from the responding party. Finding that the responding party had made maintained an effective reservation in relation to jurisdiction throughout the adjudication, the Court made provided the following guidance about how reservations as to jurisdiction should be made. First, there could be an express agreemen ...
|
In December 2006 the petitioners, Atholl Developments (Slackbuie) Limited, entered into a construction contract with UBC Group Limited, on the standard form SBCC Scottish Building Contract with Approximate Quantities May 99 Edition (January 2004 revision), with additional incorporations and other terms agreed by the parties. Clause 41A of the standard terms contained provisions for Adjudication. Two adjudications occurred during the lifetime of the contract, both concerning the valuation of the ...
|
The main contractor, Shepherd, appealed against a decision that it could not rely on a ‘pay when paid’ clause in its sub-contracts with the respondent in order to refuse payment to them after the employer went into administration. The clause stated that the employer was to be considered "insolvent" if an administration order was made against it under the Insolvency Act 1986 Pt II, or if an administrative receiver was appointed or if a winding up order was made. When the 1986 Act was amended by t ...
|
This case considered the issue of Tolent clauses and their compliance with the HGCRA. The contract between the parties required the referring party to an adjudication to pay both parties’ costs and the adjudicator’s fees regardless of the outcome of the adjudication. Crucially, the Tolent clause concerning the costs of the adjudication only applied to the contractor – it did not apply to the employer if it started an adjudication. The Judge held that the clause was not compliant with the HGCRA. ...
|
This case concerned a builder’s concurrent duties in tort and contract in relation to economic loss. The Court held that the general rule that a builder does not owe a duty of care to owners or occupiers for economic loss is not intended to exclude circumstances where there is a “special relationship of proximity” for example, when the builder is also in a contractual relationship with a client. In principle, therefore, a builder will owe a tortuous duty of care to his client, ...
|
This case concerned the issue of two conflicting interim payment provisions. The Court reiterated the general rule that where a term has been specifically drafted for the contract in question, that term will take precedence over a standard term (in this case the JCT Design and Build Contract (rev 1) 2007). However, this rule is rebuttable and can be overridden by an express term of a contract. Clause 1.3 of the JCT conditions provides that “The Agreement and these Conditions are to be read ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |