This case concerned whether a sub-contract allowed the main contractor (Mulalley) to claim from the sub-contractor (Leander) if the sub-contractor's actions interfered with the progress of the main contract works. Mulalley issued withholding notices for delays by Leander, which Leander challenged in these proceedings. Leander argued that the sub-contract did not contain an express obligation to proceed diligently, and there was no implied term to this effect. Mulalley argued there was such an im ...
|
The Court of Appeal considered conjoined appeals and a cross-appeal arising out of two decisions of the TCC which (i) affirmed the jurisdiction of an adjudicator in spite of the fact that the adjudicator was the second appointed adjudicator, but then (ii) held that the second adjudicator's decision was a nullity for apparent bias. In respect of the jurisdiction of the second adjudicator, Jackson LJ, giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal, found that a party who did not pursue an adjudication ...
|
Carillion sought a declaration that an adjudicator in an adjudication commenced by Smith had no jurisdiction as the same case or substantially the same dispute had already been referred. Smith had referred three adjudications. The second adjudication concerned Smith's claim for consequential losses arising out of Carillion's alleged delay to works and failure to issue an extension of time. The adjudicator dismissed the losses claim due to inadequate particularisation and no causal connection. Sm ...
|
The interesting point in this adjudication enforcement decision is whether execution of a summary judgment in favour of enforcement of the adjudicator's decision should be stayed until the decision of a county court case which was hearing the same matter. It is established that a party may refer a dispute to adjudication even though it is the subject of current litigation as the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 permits the referral of a dispute "at any time". However, this ...
|
The TCC considered whether a breach of natural justice by an adjudicator could amount to a total failure of consideration thereby preventing the adjudicator from recovering his fees. The adjudicator had failed to address the defences of the respondent to the adjudication with the result that the decision was unenforceable. Akenhead J held that when engaging the services of an adjudicator the parties bargained for not only the production of the decision, but also the discharge of functions such a ...
|
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 ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |