Under the construction adjudication rules, adjudicators are able only to consider "a dispute" (unless the parties agree otherwise). Whitney Town Council sought a declaration disputing the jurisdiction of an adjudicator who, it said, had decided a number of disputes in one adjudication. The adjudication arose when Beam submitted its final account, and was denied access to the site by Witney. Beam commenced an adjudication alleging that Witney had committed a fundamental breach of contract and the ...
|
The TCC considered whether an insurance company was liable to an employer in a construction project to renovate the Hackney Empire under a bond securing the performance of the obligations of the contractor. The claimant had made a payment under a side agreement of sums in respect of potential claims which the contractor had. The contractor failed to substantiate its claims, and went into administration. The claimant sought to recover the money paid under the side agreement under the bond. The in ...
|
This claim concerned a fire which destroyed a Cadbury's factory in Pontefract. The fire broke out in the 'oil pop' popcorn production area. ADT had provided a fire protection system in the form of a CO2 suppression system for the popcorn production lines. On the day of the fire a popcorn operator noticed, when filling containers with popcorn, that the container was melting due to popcorn burning inside. The small fire caught but was thought to have been extinguished by the operators stamping on ...
|
This appeal concerned a restitutionary award given in favour of the respondent firm of builders. The builders carried out development work on land owned by the appellants pursuant to an oral contract between the builders and a third company owned by the appellants. The use of the third company was said to be for tax purposes. The trial judge had held that there was a contract between the third party and the builders, but that against the appellants the builders had a claim in restitution. On app ...
|
The claimant property owners sought to establish that the defendant builders (who had constructed the properties some eight years' previously) owed a duty of care in relation to physical damage to their houses. The roof to the row of terrace houses had been lifted by wind and dropped back onto the walls as a result of it not being strapped down properly. The defendants argued that there could be no liability because what was damaged was in essence "the thing itself". The court found in favour of ...
|
Network Rail, the client defendant, succeeded in its application for summary judgment against parts of a claim brought by disappointed tenderer Mermec for alleged breach of the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2006 in the tender process for a track inspection system. Mermec alleged that the defendant failed to supply certain information about the bids meaning that Mermec could not make an informed decision within the standstill period as to whether to mount a challenge. Network Rail's argued that ...
|
In an application for summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator's decision, the defendant argued that the adjudicator had acted in breach of the rules of natural justice by failing to notify the parties of the methodology that he proposed to use when calculating a value for the target cost under an agreement and the figures used for the purpose of making that calculation. The court held that the claimant was entitled to summary judgment in the sum claimed. The defendant had not demonstrated tha ...
|
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 ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |