STC SpA v Commission, CPL Concordia Soc. Coop: ECFI 1 Dec 2016

ECJ Order – Public works contracts – Procedure for tender – Construction of a trigeneration plant with a gas turbine and related service – Rejection of a tender – Withdrawal of contested measure – No -Place the proceedings

ECLI:EU:T:2016:705, [2016] EUECJ T-355/14 – CO
Bailii
European

Construction

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572613

Europower v Commission – T-383/14: ECFI 1 Dec 2016

ECJ Order – Public works contracts – Procedure for tender – Construction of a trigeneration plant with a gas turbine and related service – Rejection of a tender – Withdrawal of contested measure – No -Place the proceedings

ECLI:EU:T:2016:706, [2016] EUECJ T-383/14 – CO
Bailii
European

Construction

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572580

Harding (T/A MJ Harding Building Contractors) v Paice and Another: TCC 15 Apr 2014

Application by the Claimant for summary judgment against the Defendants in relation to two adjudication decisions under which a total sum of andpound;269,917.86 is claimed, together with further interest and costs.

Ramset J
[2014] EWHC 4819 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Arbitration, Construction

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.569069

Hart St Investements Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Construction Industry Scheme : Property Development): FTTTx 13 May 2020

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY SCHEME – property development – property owned by five persons – appellant company specially formed to facilitate property development – were payments by appellant to building contractors made under ‘construction contracts’? – was appellant a person to whom s59 applied? – was it carrying on a business which included construction operations? – yes – was there a reasonable excuse for failure to make CIS returns? – no – appeal dismissed

[2020] UKFTT 218 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Construction, Income Tax

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.651598

Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd: TCC 5 Jun 2006

Jackson J
[2006] EWHC 1341 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoCleveland Bridge UK Ltd v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd TCC 31-Aug-2005
A third party television company sought access to the particulars of claim and other pleadings.
Held: HH Judge Wilcox said: ‘There can be no legitimate distinction drawn between decisions made in interlocutory proceedings and those at final . .
See AlsoInterserve Industrial Services Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd TCC 6-Feb-2006
. .

Cited by:
Appeal fromMultiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another CA 20-Dec-2006
. .
See AlsoMultiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd (No. 2) TCC 31-Jan-2007
. .
See AlsoMultiplex Construction (Uk) Ltd v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd TCC 8-Feb-2007
Application for permission to appeal. Jackson J considered whether permission to appeal should have been requested at the hearing: ‘It seems to me that I have got to interpret the provisions of Rule 52.3 and the provisions of the Practice Direction . .
See AlsoMultiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd (No. 2) TCC 6-Mar-2007
. .
See AlsoMultiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd (No 3) TCC 12-Mar-2007
. .
See AlsoCleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd CA 27-Apr-2007
The court construed an agreement supplemental to a construction contract. . .
See AlsoMultiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another CA 21-Dec-2007
. .
See AlsoMultiplex Construction Ltd v Cleveland Bridge Ltd and Another CA 6-Feb-2008
. .
See AlsoMultiplex Construction (Uk) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another TCC 7-Feb-2008
. .
See AlsoMultiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another TCC 19-Mar-2008
. .
See AlsoMultiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another (No 7) TCC 29-Sep-2008
Last stage of the Wembley stadium construction dispute. Jackson J, interpreting Carver said that it set out: ‘how the court ought to approach the matter in circumstances where: (a) one party has made an offer which was nearly but not quite . .
See AlsoMultiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another TCC 29-Sep-2008
. .
See AlsoCleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd CA 19-Feb-2010
. .
See AlsoCleveland Bridge Uk Ltd and Another v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd CA 31-Mar-2010
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.242721

Buckingham v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 24 Nov 2010

FTTTx SUB-CONTRACTOR – appellant working for father – father and his company owned some 18 house to let – appellant orchestrated refurbishment work for company – HMRC alleged appellant a contractor under the Construction Industry Scheme – appellant acting as agent for father – appeal allowed

[2010] UKFTT 593 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Construction, Income Tax

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.567533

Bushell v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 16 Nov 2010

FTTTx Construction Industry Scheme .S 57 FA 2004. Regulation 4 SI 2005/2045. Obligation to deliver a monthly return imposed by s 57 on ‘persons who make payments under construction contracts’ When a person ceased to be one who made payments. Extent of obligation to deliver nil return under Reg 4(10). Where obligation existed whether reasonable excuse for failure – reliance on another. Proportionality – Effect of Human Rights law – SKG(London) ltd TC 00282 considered.

[2010] UKFTT 577 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Construction, Income Tax

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.567534

Harrison v Southwark and Vauxhall Water Company: ChD 11 May 1891

A claim was made for damages for nuisance from construction works.
Held: The obligations of the defendant company in respect of the sinking of the shaft were neither greater nor less than those of a private person; and that a private person would not, in similar circumstances, be held to have created a legal nuisance by reason of the annoyance caused to his neighbours in the thumping for the purpose of sinking the shaft, unless it could be shown that he had neglected to take all reasonable precautions for mitigating the annoyance to his neighbours.

Vaughan-Williams J
[1891] 2 Ch 409, [1891] UKLawRpCh 87
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
PreferredHiscox Syndicates Ltd and Another v The Pinnacle Ltd and others ChD 25-Jan-2008
The claimants sought an injunction in nuisance, saying that the defendants had agreed to use all reasonable endeavours to avoid causing a nuisance to them in demolition works on their neighbouring land.
Held: The injunction should be granted. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Construction

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.266301

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham v Terrapin Construction Limited: CA 31 Jul 2000

Claim for damages for breach of contract, breach of statutory duty and negligence for alleged defects in the new build and refurbishment work at the Sidney Russell Comprehensive School in Dagenham,

Lord Justice Otton
Lord Justice Buxton
And
Mr Justice Hooper
[2000] EWCA Civ 247
Bailii
England and Wales

Construction, Negligence

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.147280

Andreae v Selfridge and Co Ltd: CA 1938

The plaintiff had a hotel. The rest of the island had been acquired by the defendant which was demolishing and rebuilding the other properties. The plaintiff complained, and the judge found, that by reason of the operations, which involved noise and dust, there was a substantial interference with the comfort of the plaintiff in the reasonable occupation and use of her house, such that, assuming damage to be established, an actionable nuisance would be constituted. The judge found that damage was established and assessed the damages at 4500 pounds. It was argued: ‘But it was said that when one is dealing with temporary operations, such as demolition and re-building, everybody has to put up with a certain amount of discomfort, because operations of that kind cannot be carried on at all without a certain amount of noise and a certain amount of dust. Therefore, the rule with regard to interference must be read subject to this qualification, and there can be no dispute about it, that in respect of operations of this character, such as demolition and building, if they are reasonably carried on and all proper and reasonable steps are taken to ensure that no undue inconvenience is caused to neighbours, whether from noise, dust, or other reasons, the neighbours must put up with it.’
Held: The argument succeeded. There was no evidence which would warrant its being said that ‘the type of demolition excavation and construction in which the defendant company was engaged in the course of these operations was of such an abnormal and unusual nature as to prevent the qualification to which I have referred coming into operation’, and (Sir Wilfred Greene MR) ‘I am unable to take the view that any of these operations was of such an abnormal character as to justify treating the disturbance created by it, and the whole of the disturbance created by it, as constituting a nuisance.’
Sir Wilfred Greene MR said: ‘Building operations often substantially interfere with adjoining owners’ enjoyment of their property because of noise, dust and perhaps vibration. Such matters in some circumstances might be held to be a nuisance and form grounds for an injunction prohibiting their continuance or an action for damages or both. If this were the result of ordinary building operations the business of life could not be carried on for old buildings could not be pulled down and new erected in their place. But the law takes a commonsense view of the matter and, if operations’ such as demolition and building are reasonably carried on and all proper and reasonable steps are taken to ensure that no undue inconvenience is caused to neighbours, whether from noise, dust or other reasons, the neighbours must put up with it.’
and ‘Those who say that their interference with the comfort of their neighbours is justified because their operations are normal and usual and conducted with proper care and skill, are under a specific duty if they wish to make good that defence to use that reasonable and proper care and skill. It is not a correct attitude to take to say, We will go on and do what we like until somebody complains’. That is not their duty to their neighbours. Their duty is to take proper precautions and to see that the nuisance is reduced to a minimum. It is no answer for them to say, But this would mean that we should have to do the work more slowly than we would like to do it or it would involve putting us to some extra expense’. All those questions are matters of commonsense and degree, and quite clearly it would be unreasonable to expect people to conduct their work so slowly or so expensively for the purpose of preventing a transient inconvenience that the cost or trouble would be prohibitive. It is all a question of fact and degree and must necessarily be so. In this case the defendant company’s attitude seems to have been to go on until somebody complained and, further, that its desire to hurry its work and conduct it according to its own ideas and its own convenience was to prevail if there was a real conflict between it and the comfort of its neighbours. That, to my mind, is not carrying out the obligation of using reasonable care and skill’.

Sir Wilfred Greene MR, Romer LJ and Scott LJ
[1938] Ch 1
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRylands v Fletcher HL 1868
The defendant had constructed a reservoir to supply water to his mill. Water escaped into nearby disused mineshafts, and in turn flooded the plaintiff’s mine. The defendant appealed a finding that he was liable in damages.
Held: The defendant . .

Cited by:
CitedTransco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council HL 19-Nov-2003
Rylands does not apply to Statutory Works
The claimant laid a large gas main through an embankment. A large water supply pipe nearby broke, and very substantial volumes of water escaped, causing the embankment to slip, and the gas main to fracture.
Held: The rule in Rylands v Fletcher . .
CitedWildtree Hotels Ltd and others v Harrow London Borough Council HL 22-Jun-2000
The compensation which was payable for disturbance, when works were carried out on land acquired compulsorily, did not extend to the damage caused by noise dust and vibration arising from the works. Where however damage could be brought within the . .
CitedWestminster City Council v Ocean Leisure Limited CA 21-Jul-2004
The claimant company owned property next to land which had been acquired to build a new bridge across the Thames. It sought compensation for disturbance to its business from the works.
Held: The state of the law was complicated and . .
CitedClift and Another v Welsh Office CA 23-Jul-1998
Whilst it was settled law that no compensation was payable for temporary disturbance to neighbouring land by building works on land compulsorily purchased, as soon as that disturbance came to produce physical damage, compensation became payable. . .
CitedWildtree Hotels Ltd And Others v London Borough of Harrow CA 11-Jun-1998
Temporary, if damaging disturbance which fell short of actual damage to a neighbour’s land and which was caused by works executed on land which had been purchased compulsorily, was not normally claimable and not by the owner of only a temporary . .
CitedHiscox Syndicates Ltd and Another v The Pinnacle Ltd and others ChD 25-Jan-2008
The claimants sought an injunction in nuisance, saying that the defendants had agreed to use all reasonable endeavours to avoid causing a nuisance to them in demolition works on their neighbouring land.
Held: The injunction should be granted. . .
MentionedShephard and others v Turner and Another CA 23-Jan-2006
The appellants challenged the removal of a restrictive covenant on a neighbour’s house restricting further building on the land to allow further house in the garden. It was in a small close of houses all erected, and the covenant imposed, in 1952. . .
CitedCoventry and Others v Lawrence and Another SC 26-Feb-2014
C operated a motor racing circuit as tenant. The neighbour L objected that the noise emitted by the operations were a nuisance. C replied that the fact of his having planning consent meant that it was not a nuisance.
Held: The neighbour’s . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Construction

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.188037

J Murphy and Sons Ltd v W Maher and Sons Ltd: TCC 23 May 2016

Part 8 proceedings between a sub-contractor, J. Murphy and Sons Ltd and its earth shifting sub-sub-contractor, W. Maher and Sons Ltd asking about the jurisdiction of an adjudicator, namely, where there is a dispute as to whether there has been a full and final settlement agreement between the contractual parties of the final account, whether the dispute arises ‘under’ the sub-contract or under the alleged settlement agreement or both. ‘

Sir Robert Akenhead
[2016] EWHC 1148 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Construction, Arbitration

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565559

Higginson Securities (Developments) Ltd and Another v Hodson: TCC 26 Apr 2012

Application for a stay of proceedings to enable without prejudice meetings to occur raising issues about the need for the parties always to have regard to the overriding objective in relation to the application of the practice relating to the Pre-Action Protocol.

Mr Justice Akenheadmr Justice Akenhead
[2012] EWHC 1052 (TCC), [2012] TCLR 6, [2012] BLR 321,
Bailii
England and Wales

Construction, Litigation Practice

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.453020

Manolete Partners Plc v Hastings Borough Council: TCC 12 Apr 2013

Application for compensation under s.106 of the Building Act 1984 for compensation as a result of the Council exercising its powers to prevent access to Hastings Pier under s.78 of the 1984 Act.
Held: The court rejected the defence, holding that the reference to ‘default’ should be read as default in respect of obligations imposed by the 1984 Act itself: ‘If that is not so and if it were necessary to see whether a party was in breach of any provision of other statutes, as is submitted here, then the scope of enquiry would be large and would require investigation of further factual matters to determine whether there was a default in terms of those statutes.’

Ramsey J
[20131 EWHC 842 (TCC), [2013] BLR 361, [2013] RVR 241, [2013] 2 EGLR 17
Bailii
Building Act 1984, Occupiers Liability Act 1957
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedLingke v Christchurch Corporation CA 1912
The householder sought compensation under the Act, for the disturbance in the laying of a drain in the highway abutting the claimant’s house and furniture shop. Because of the constraints of the work site, excavated soil had been thrown up against . .
CitedHobbs v Winchester Corporation CA 18-Jun-1910
Meat had been seized under section 116 of the 1875 Act as unfit for human consumption. Although the butcher was acquitted of any offence under section 117 of that Act, on the grounds that he was unaware that it was unfit for consumption, it was . .
CitedNeath Rural District Council v Williams QBD 1951
A watercourse became silted by natural causes and the local authority served an abatement notice on the landowner, who failed to respond, and when prosecuted relied on a proviso which excluded from liability ‘any person other than the person by . .
CitedGranada Theatres Ltd v Freehold Investment (Leytonstone) Ltd CA 23-Mar-1959
The tenant claimed that the landlord had failed in its obligations of repair undertaken in the lease.
Held: Where the landlord was in default, a tenant may have a right to undertake the repairs itself, recovering the costs.
Jenkins LJ . .
CitedLeonidis v Thames Water Authority 1979
Access to the plaintiff’s motor repair business was interfered with by work to reconstruct a sewer. Whilst access was still possible it required a long detour and there was no physical interference with the entrance to the premises.
Held: If a . .
CitedSecretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another v Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council SC 6-Apr-2011
The land-owner had planning permission to erect a barn, conditional on its use for agricultural purposes. He built inside it a house and lived there from 2002. In 2006. He then applied for a certificate of lawful use. The inspector allowed it, and . .

Cited by:
At TCCManolete Partners Plc v Hastings Borough Council CA 7-May-2014
The claimants appealed from rejection of their claim to compensation under the 1984 Act as tenants of a pier closed by the Authority. The Authority said that it had failed to comply with its leasehold obligations of repair, and was in default under . .
At TCCHastings Borough Council v Manolete Partners Plc SC 27-Jul-2016
The council appealed against the decision that it is liable to pay compensation under section 106 of the Building Act 1984, for loss to a business on Hastings Pier arising from its closure during 2006 under the council’s emergency powers. The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Local Government

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.472588

William Milne, Architect In Edinburgh, and Alexander Brown, Merchant In Edinburgh, and Robert Milne, Architect In London, His Cautioners v The Magistrates and Town Council of Edinburgh: HL 15 Feb 1770

Arbitration Clause – Contract.-
A contract in regard to the execution of the works in building a bridge, contained a clause, referring all differences and disputes to two neutral men of skill, as arbiters to be chosen, and in case of them differing, with power to them to choose an oversman, whose determination was to be final. Held, on a preliminary defence being stated, to a summons raised for failure to implement the contract, founded on this clause, that an agreement to refer all disputes to arbiters, did not bar the present action in this court, and that the plea in this case, was irrelevant and inadmissible.

[1770] UKHL 2 – Paton – 209
Bailii

Scotland, Construction, Arbitration

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.561667

Arcadis UK Ltd v May and Baker Ltd (T/A Sanofi): TCC 29 Jan 2013

Issues are raised in these adjudication enforcement proceedings as the extent to which it is legitimate or unfair for an adjudicator to take into account or adopt the reasoning of a previous adjudicator’s decision.

Mr Justice Akenhead
[2013] EWHC 87 (TCC), [2013] BLR 210
Bailii
England and Wales

Arbitration, Construction

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.470636

Agnew (T/A B and I Plastering) v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Sub-Contractors In The Construction Industry): FTTTx 25 Nov 2015

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY SCHEME – late filing of monthly returns – obligation delegated to bookkeeper – Appellant asserted that yearly P35’s contained details of CIS deductions – whether a reasonable excuse – no – Section 98A Taxes Management Act 1970 – Schedule 55 to the Finance Act 2009 – CIS tax deductions not accounted for to HMRC – whether penalties unfair or disproportionate – no – principles set down in Bosher applied – appeal not allowed

[2015] UKFTT 587 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax, Construction

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.556399

Fairway Lakes Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 9 Nov 2015

Vat – Supply : Single or Multiple – VAT – Development of a ‘holiday village’ – Whether a single supply of zero rated construction services or taxable composite supply of construction services and procuring transfer of leasehold interest in completed lodge – Appeal dismissed

[2015] UKFTT 605 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

VAT, Construction

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.556405

Severfield (UK) Ltd v Duro Felguera UK Ltd: TCC 24 Nov 2015

The court considered the potential difficulty of payment provisions under a contract concerned with both construction operations and operations which are excluded by the 1996 Act (sometimes referred to as a hybrid contract), and the particular consequences for such a contract of the notice provisions in sections 110, 110A, 110B and 111 of the Act, and the recent line of authority spelling out the consequences for an employer of failing to serve the notices required by those provisions.

Couson J
[2015] EWHC 3352 (TCC)
Bailii
Housing Grants (Construction and Regeneration) Act 1996
England and Wales

Contract, Construction

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.556347

Harding (T/A M J Harding Contractors) v Paice and Another: CA 1 Dec 2015

‘appeal by a building contractor against a judgment of the Technology and Construction Court (‘TCC’) refusing to grant either an injunction or a declaration to prevent an adjudication going forward. The central issue in this appeal is whether an earlier adjudication on related matters shuts out the new adjudication.’

Jackson. Rafferty, Gloster lJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 1231
Bailii
England and Wales

Arbitration, Construction

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.556234

Fernando v Bilton: CA 8 Oct 2015

Renewed application for permission to appeal from a decision dismissing a claim by the applicant for damages resulting from the claimant’s exposure to noise, brought on grounds of negligence, nuisance and breach of statutory duty.

Sir David Keene
[2015] EWCA Civ 1098
Bailii
England and Wales

Nuisance, Negligence, Construction, Personal Injury

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.556229

Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd (No. 2): TCC 31 Jan 2007

[2007] EWHC 145 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoCleveland Bridge UK Ltd v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd TCC 31-Aug-2005
A third party television company sought access to the particulars of claim and other pleadings.
Held: HH Judge Wilcox said: ‘There can be no legitimate distinction drawn between decisions made in interlocutory proceedings and those at final . .
See AlsoMultiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd TCC 5-Jun-2006
. .
See AlsoMultiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another CA 20-Dec-2006
. .

Cited by:
See AlsoMultiplex Construction (Uk) Ltd v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd TCC 8-Feb-2007
Application for permission to appeal. Jackson J considered whether permission to appeal should have been requested at the hearing: ‘It seems to me that I have got to interpret the provisions of Rule 52.3 and the provisions of the Practice Direction . .
See AlsoMultiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd (No. 2) TCC 6-Mar-2007
. .
See AlsoMultiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd (No 3) TCC 12-Mar-2007
. .
See AlsoCleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd CA 27-Apr-2007
The court construed an agreement supplemental to a construction contract. . .
See AlsoMultiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another CA 21-Dec-2007
. .
See AlsoMultiplex Construction Ltd v Cleveland Bridge Ltd and Another CA 6-Feb-2008
. .
See AlsoMultiplex Construction (Uk) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another TCC 7-Feb-2008
. .
See AlsoMultiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another TCC 19-Mar-2008
. .
See AlsoMultiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another (No 7) TCC 29-Sep-2008
Last stage of the Wembley stadium construction dispute. Jackson J, interpreting Carver said that it set out: ‘how the court ought to approach the matter in circumstances where: (a) one party has made an offer which was nearly but not quite . .
See AlsoMultiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another TCC 29-Sep-2008
. .
See AlsoCleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd CA 19-Feb-2010
. .
See AlsoCleveland Bridge Uk Ltd and Another v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd CA 31-Mar-2010
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.248957

Farquharson v Revenue and Customs (Value Added Tax – DIY House Builders Scheme): FTTTx 28 Jun 2019

VALUE ADDED TAX – DIY House Builders Scheme – construction of a dwelling and a garage – claim of input VAT refund under s 35 VATA – occupation for over 8 years before sale – Certificate of Completion applied for in order to sell the home property – whether the claim time-barred – determination of ‘completion’ for the purposes of reg 201 of the 1995 Regulations – appeal allowed

[2019] SFTD 1171
Bailii
England and Wales

VAT, Construction

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.641241

The Central Tenders Board and Another v White (T/A White Construction Services): PC 6 Oct 2015

From the Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (Montserrat) The CTB appealed from a decision that it was in breach of a building contract made with the respondent, Mr White (trading as White Construction Services). The trial judge had ordered that Mr White should recover compensation to be assessed in default of agreement. The CTB’s defence to Mr White’s claim was that it acted ultra vires in failing to comply with proper procedures for the procurement of goods or services by tender, and therefore that the contract was void.

Lord Kerr, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson
[2015] UKPC 39
Bailii

Commonwealth, Construction, Administrative, Contract

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.553063

Witney Bowls Club v Revenue and Customs (Vat – Zero-Rating : Building Work): FTTTx 27 Aug 2015

FTTTx VAT – zero-rating – construction services – item 2 Group 5 Schedule 8 VATA 1994 – whether supply for relevant charitable purpose- whether supply to registered community amateur sports club made to a charity- appeal dismissed

[2015] UKFTT 421 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

VAT, Construction

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.552004

Howells and Another v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 10 Aug 2015

FTTTx Value Added Tax : Diy Builders Scheme – VALUE ADDED TAX D DIY Builders scheme D s 35 VATA 1994 D claim withdrawn because HMRC evidence requirements could not be met D Penalty under Schedule 24 Finance Act 2007 D whether inaccuracy in document caused by failure to take reasonable care D No, because no inaccuracy D if inaccuracy, no failure to take reasonable case – appeal upheld.

[2015] UKFTT 412 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

VAT, Construction

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.551540

Caithness Rugby Football Club v Revenue and Customs (VAT – Zero-Rating : Building Work): FTTTx 6 Aug 2015

FTTTx VAT – zero-rating – construction by a football club of a clubhouse on a sportsground – whether intended for use ‘as a village hall or similarly in providing social or recreational facilities for a local community’ – VATA Sch 8, Group 5, item 2 and note 6(b) – Appeal allowed

[2015] UKFTT 378 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

VAT, Construction

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.551529

NH International (Caribbean) Ltd v National Insurance Property Development Company Ltd: PC 6 Aug 2015

Trinidad and Tobago – the parties disputed points arising from an arbitration as to the interpretation of the FIDIC General Conditions of Contract for Construction, First Edition 1999.

Lord Neuberger, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed
[2015] UKPC 37
Bailii
Commonwealth

Arbitration, Construction, Contract

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.551032

Parkinson v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Jul 2015

FTTTx Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Sub-Contractors In The Construction Industry – INCOME TAX – construction industry scheme – late filing of returns – penalties – proportionality of penalties – Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs v Bosher applied – calculation of penalty – reasonable excuse – appeal allowed in part

[2015] UKFTT 342 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax, Construction

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550568

Barett v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 7 Jul 2015

FTTTX Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Sub-Contractors In The Construction Industry – INCOME TAX – construction industry scheme (CIS) – contractor failing to deduct tax on payments to sub-contractor – Income Tax (Construction Industry Scheme) Regulations 2005, regs 9 and 13 – TMA 1970, s 50(6) – penalties for failure to make CIS returns – TMA, s 98A, s 100, s 102 – extent of tribunal’s jurisdiction – whether taxpayer had reasonable excuse in respect of failure to make returns – s 118(2) – reliance on accountant

[2015] UKFTT 329 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax, Construction

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550291

Gotch and Another v Enelco Ltd: TCC 3 Jul 2015

Claim brought under Part 8 of the CPR for a declaration that the building contract that the Claimants entered into with the Defendant does not entitle the Defendant to refer a dispute to adjudication.

Edwards-Stuart J
[2015] EWHC 1802 (TCC), [2015] TCLR 8, [2015] 4 Costs LR 669
Bailii
England and Wales

Construction, Arbitration, Costs

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550211

Woods Building Services v Milton Keynes Council: TCC 14 Jul 2015

Procurement dispute arising out of a tender process undertaken by the defendant (‘the Council’) for the award of a framework agreement for asbestos removal.

Coulson J
[2015] EWHC 2011 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Proncipal JudgmentWoods Building Services v Milton Keynes Council (Damages) TCC 14-Jul-2015
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550213

P and O Developments Ltd, the Guy’s and St Thomas’ National Health Service Trust v The Guy’s and St Thomas’ National Health Service Trust, P and O Developments Ltd, Austen Associates (A Firm), Austen Associates Ltd: TCC 15 Oct 1998

a trial of Preliminary Issues.

His Honour Judge Bowsher QC
[1998] EWHC Technology 295, [1999] BLR 3, 62 Con LR 38
Bailii
England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Construction

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.201760

Obrascon Huarte Lain Sa v HM Attorney General for Gibraltar: CA 9 Jul 2015

Appeal by a Spanish civil engineering contractor, which was engaged upon constructing a road around Gibraltar Airport, against a decision of Mr Justice Akenhead (‘the judge’) that the employer effectively terminated the contract under clause 15 of the FIDIC Yellow Book Conditions.

[2015] EWCA Civ 712
Bailii
England and Wales

Construction

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.549774

Iliffe and Another v Feltham Construction Ltd and Others: CA 9 Jul 2015

Appeal by the main contractor against a summary judgment on liability in favour of the building owners, in the context of multi-party litigation concerning fire damage. The issue in this appeal is whether, despite the building owners’ good prospects of success, the requirements for summary judgment set out in the Civil Procedure Rules (‘CPR’) are satisfied.

Jackson, Tomlinson, Floyd LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 715
Bailii
England and Wales

Construction

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.549769

Aspect Contracts (Asbetos) Ltd v Higgins Construction Plc: SC 17 Jun 2015

Aspect had claimed the return of funds paid by it to the appellant Higgins under an adjudication award in a construction contract disute. The claimant had been asked to prpare asbestos surveys and reports on maisonettes which Higgins was to acquire and redevlop. Higgins now appealed againt a decision overturning a high court judgment in its favour.
Held: The appeal failed. A party which had failed in a construction contract arbitration would be entitled to recover sums paid by it if and when the fundamental dispute was in the end decided in its favour. The associated cause of action for the recovery of that sum arose on the date of the first payment.

Lord Mance, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Toulson
[2015] UKSC 38, [2015] 4 All ER 482, [2015] WLR(D) 261, 160 Con LR 28, [2015] BLR 503, [2015] 1 WLR 2961, [2015] 2 All ER (Comm) 965, [2015] Bus LR 830, UKSC 2014/0021
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Video
Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedDavies v Taylor HL 1974
The plaintiff’s husband was killed in a road accident caused by the defendant’s negligence. They were childless. She had deserted him five weeks before his death and thereafter, he learned about her adultery with a fellow employee. He tried to . .
CitedJim Ennis Construction Ltd v Premier Asphalt Ltd TCC 24-Jul-2009
The court was asked as to the date of accrual of the cause of action where a losing party to an adjudication brought under Part II of the 1996 Act later begins proceedings to seek a final determination of the matters decided by the adjudicator with . .
At First InstanceAspect Contracts (Asbestos) Ltd v Higgins Construction Plc TCC 23-May-2013
The claimants had been engaged to provide an asbestos survey. An arbitration claim had gone against them and they appealed. . .
Appeal fromAspect Contracts (Asbestos) Ltd v Higgins Construction Plc CA 29-Nov-2013
The appeal succeeded. The Scheme implied that any overpayment could be recovered. . .
CitedGuaranty Trust Co of New York v Hannay and Co CA 1915
A claimant does not need to have a subsisting cause of action against a defendant before the court will grant a claimant a declaration. The court considered the ambiguity in the meaning of the word ‘jurisdiction’: ‘The first and, in my opinion, the . .
CitedWoolf v Collis Removal Service CA 1947
Claims in tort with a nexus to the contract can be within phrases such as ‘in connection with’ in the context of arbitration clauses . .
CitedAstro Vencedor Compania Naviera SA v Mabanaft GmbH CA 1971
For an arbitration clause in a contract between parties to be used to enforce arbitration of a tortious claim, the tortious claim must arise out of the contractual matters. In this case damages were sought for the wrongful arrest of a ship in . .
CitedEmpresa Exportadora de Azucar v Industria Azucarera Nacional S.A, The Playa Larga CA 1983
There had been a theft by Cuban sellers of one cargo of sugar, property in which had already passed to the buyers, and non-delivery of a second combined with trickery whereby the intended buyers were nonetheless induced to pay its price. The first . .
CitedFillite (Runcorn) Ltd v Aqua-Lift CA 1989
The court considered whether claims arising from misrepresentation or breach of a collateral contrat were claims arising ‘under’ the contract so as to be governed by the disputes provisions in it.
Held: The disputes did not arise ‘under the . .
CitedWestdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council; Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Sandwell Borough Council ChD 23-Feb-1993
A bank, having made payment under an void interest rate swap agreement to a local authority, was entitled to recover the payments made under the equitable doctrine of restitution. It would be wrong to allow the local authorities to enjoy an unjust . .
CitedP and O Nedloyd BV v Arab Metals Co and Others (‘The UB Tiger’) QBD 22-Jun-2005
The claimants sought to amend their particulars of claim to add a request for declarations with regard to a bill of lading and contract for carriage.
Held: The application to amend was made more than six years after the cause of action . .
CitedHenderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd HL 25-Jul-1994
Lloyds Agents Owe Care Duty to Member; no Contract
Managing agents conducted the financial affairs of the Lloyds Names belonging to the syndicates under their charge. It was alleged that they managed these affairs with a lack of due careleading to enormous losses.
Held: The assumption of . .
CitedWalker Construction (UK) Ltd v Quayside Homes Ltd and Another CA 7-Feb-2014
. .
CitedPremium Nafta Products Ltd (20th Defendant) and others v Fili Shipping Company Ltd and others; Fiona Trust and Holding Corporation v Privalov HL 17-Oct-2007
The owners of a ship sought to rescind charters saying that they had been procured by bribery.
Held: A claim to rescind a contract by reason of bribery fell within the scope of an arbitration clause under which the parties had agreed to refer . .
CitedSempra Metals Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners and Another HL 18-Jul-2007
The parties agreed that damages were payable in an action for restitution, but the sum depended upon to a calculation of interest. They disputed whether such interest should be calculated on a simple or compound basis. The company sought compound . .
CitedChimimport Plc v G d’Alesio SAS 1994
The phrase ‘arising under’ in a clause referring matters to arbitration is narrower than ‘arising out of’ and the court doubted whether a tortious claim could easily give rise to a dispute ‘under the contract’. . .
CitedKleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council etc HL 29-Jul-1998
Right of Recovery of Money Paid under Mistake
Kleinwort Benson had made payments to a local authority under swap agreements which were thought to be legally enforceable when made. Subsequently, a decision of the House of Lords, (Hazell v. Hammersmith and Fulham) established that such swap . .
CitedAspect Contracts (Asbestos) Ltd v Higgins Construction Plc CA 29-Nov-2013
The appeal succeeded. The Scheme implied that any overpayment could be recovered. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration, Construction

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.549063

Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd (No 3): TCC 12 Mar 2007

Jackson J
[2007] EWHC 659 (TCC), (2007) 23 Const LJ 299
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoCleveland Bridge UK Ltd v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd TCC 31-Aug-2005
A third party television company sought access to the particulars of claim and other pleadings.
Held: HH Judge Wilcox said: ‘There can be no legitimate distinction drawn between decisions made in interlocutory proceedings and those at final . .
See AlsoMultiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd TCC 5-Jun-2006
. .
See AlsoMultiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another CA 20-Dec-2006
. .
See AlsoMultiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd (No. 2) TCC 31-Jan-2007
. .
See AlsoMultiplex Construction (Uk) Ltd v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd TCC 8-Feb-2007
Application for permission to appeal. Jackson J considered whether permission to appeal should have been requested at the hearing: ‘It seems to me that I have got to interpret the provisions of Rule 52.3 and the provisions of the Practice Direction . .
See AlsoMultiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd (No. 2) TCC 6-Mar-2007
. .

Cited by:
See AlsoCleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd CA 27-Apr-2007
The court construed an agreement supplemental to a construction contract. . .
See AlsoMultiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another CA 21-Dec-2007
. .
See AlsoMultiplex Construction Ltd v Cleveland Bridge Ltd and Another CA 6-Feb-2008
. .
See AlsoMultiplex Construction (Uk) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another TCC 7-Feb-2008
. .
See AlsoMultiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another TCC 19-Mar-2008
. .
See AlsoMultiplex Construction (Uk) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another TCC 7-Feb-2008
. .
See AlsoMultiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another TCC 29-Sep-2008
. .
See AlsoMultiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another (No 7) TCC 29-Sep-2008
Last stage of the Wembley stadium construction dispute. Jackson J, interpreting Carver said that it set out: ‘how the court ought to approach the matter in circumstances where: (a) one party has made an offer which was nearly but not quite . .
See AlsoCleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd CA 19-Feb-2010
. .
See AlsoCleveland Bridge Uk Ltd and Another v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd CA 31-Mar-2010
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.250712

Elmpine Developments Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Construction Industry Scheme): FTTTx 2 Sep 2020

Construction Industry Scheme – determination under regulation 13 of CIS regulations – consideration of amounts related to cost of materials to be properly deducted from gross payments – discussion of meaning of best judgement – whether or not determination made to best judgement – held not – substitution of tribunal’s own judgement – appeal partially allowed

[2020] UKFTT 351 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Construction

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.654101

ABB Ltd v Bam Nuttall Ltd: TCC 12 Jul 2013

Issues about the enforceability of an adjudicator’s decision and in particular about alleged material breaches of the rules of natural justice. It is common ground that the adjudicator referred to a particular clause of the contract which neither party argued let alone mentioned to him and which he did not refer to the parties before issuing his decision.

Mr Justice Akenhead
[2013] EWHC 1983 (TCC), 149 Con LR 172, [2013] BLR 529
Bailii
England and Wales

Construction, Arbitration

Updated: 31 December 2021; Ref: scu.512379

Diputacion Foral De Bizkaia v Commission: ECFI 19 May 2015

ECJ Judgment – State aid – Construction – Help the Spanish authorities in favor of the company Habidite – Agreements concluded for the implementation of a building modules factory and delivery of modular homes produced by this factory – Decision declaring illegal aid – Decision declaring the aid partly compatible and partly incompatible with the internal market – prior notification of fault – Rights of the defense – Obligation to state reasons

Mme M. Martins Ribeiro (Rapporteur), P
T-397/12, [2015] EUECJ T-397/12, ECLI: EU: T: 2015: 291
Bailii

European, Construction

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.546898