The court had to determine whether an adjudication agreement is capable of being repudiated and the legal position of a party who does not want to go ahead with the nominated adjudicator having instituted a reference to adjudication. The court had to decide whether, if the party abandons that reference, it can go ahead with another reference for the same dispute. The court held that under section 108 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, a party could not lose its right ...
|
This was an application for summary judgment to enforce two decisions of an adjudicator in two separate actions brought against the respondent hotel owners. The court had to decide whether the adjudicator had failed to make a ruling on the defendant’s counterclaims and whether this amounted to a breach of the rules of natural justice. The court held that the question for the adjudicator was whether the counterclaims could be deployed as a defence to the claimant’s claims in the adjudication in t ...
|
In this action, the petitioners sought judicial review of a decision of an adjudicator, who had adjudicated against them in a dispute with the first respondent. The petitioners and first respondent were engaged in a building contract for a house, which was only partially completed by the contractual end date. The petitioners withheld sums due under the contract on this basis. In response to this, the first respondent sought adjudication to determine the appropriate time extension to be awarded t ...
|
The court was required to determine whether a defendant firm of solicitors was entitled to its costs on the indemnity basis. The court relied on the test set out in Excelsior Commercial & Industrial Holdings Ltd v Salisbury Hammer Aspden and Johnson (A Firm) [2002] EWCA Civ. 879, where the Court of Appeal reiterated that an order for indemnity costs could only be made where there was “some conduct or some circumstance which takes the case out of the norm.” The court stated that the exaggerated a ...
|
The Claimant, CN Associates, applied for summary judgment to enforce the decision of an adjudicator. The issue for the court was whether the parties agreed to give the adjudicator jurisdiction to decide whether there was an effective construction contract in writing between the parties and, if not, as to whether there was such a contract between the parties. The court cited the well established rule that if a party does not effectively reserve its position on a given jurisdiction issue, of which ...
|
Halo, a charity, sought to challenge the award of a contract for clearance of landmines by DFID to another charity, alleging breach of the Public Contract Regulations. The principal objection by Halo was that DFID had changed its policy, linking landmine clearance to other development activities, and that this had influenced the procurement process. The court said that the policy could not be challenged in this way; it would be a matter for a judicial review application. Halo also complained of ...
|
The Defendant NHS Trust succeeded in its application for relief from the automatic suspension of its procurement process as a result of the Claimant tenderers’ challenge of its decision. The TCC described the case as raising issues as to how such suspensions should be treated, under the Public Contracts Regulations 2006 as amended by the Public Contracts (Amendment) Regulations 2009. The tender process was for establishment of a framework agreement for the operation of a purchasing function for ...
|
This adjudication enforcement claim raised two issues, the first being whether the dispute decided in a second adjudication had been effectively decided in an earlier adjudication and secondly relating to whether the second adjudicator’s correction or amendment to his decision went beyond the correction of a clerical error. The court held that the first adjudicator had not had jurisdiction to make findings on an issue which was beyond the scope of the dispute referred to him, and since his findi ...
|
This case concerned issues of liability, causation and loss arising out of allegations of professional negligence against the defendant, Mace and Jones, a firm of solicitors, who rendered advice to the Claimant in respect of a quarry site in Cheshire. The Claimant submitted that Mace and Jones failed to sort out the difficulties created by the original planning permission, granted by SHMBC in 1990, and, in particular, failed to give advicethat would have led the Claimant to make a fresh applicat ...
|
The petitioner sought judicial review of a decision of the respondent, who was an adjudicator who had settled a dispute between the petitioner and an interested party to the proceedings, Amec Group Ltd. The petitioner and the interested party had entered into a sub-contract for various works to be carried by them at Calderglen High School, East Kilbride. The adjudication was the second one arising out of the same dispute between the parties. The petitioner sought judicial review of the decisio ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |