Edlington Properties Limited v J H Fenner and Co Limited: CA 22 Mar 2006

The landlord had assigned the reversion of the lease. There was an outstanding dispute with the tenant defendant who owed arrears of rent, but sought to set these off against a claim for damages for the landlord’s failure to construct the factory in the first place.
Held: The new landlord was not liable for the failings of the old, and the tenant could not set off any claim in damages from the original lessee against arrears of rent: ‘the weight of principle, authority and textbooks all point firmly in the same direction. Where the reversion to a lease is transferred, a tenant cannot set off, against rent falling due after the transfer, a claim for damages he has arising out of a breach by his original landlord of the lease, let alone of the agreement pursuant to which the lease was granted, unless of course the lease specifically provides that he should have that right.’

Lord Justice Pill Lord Justice Neuberger Lord Justice Scott Baker
Times 12-May-2006, [2006] EWCA Civ 403, [2006] 1 WLR 1583
Bailii
Law of Property Act 1925 141, Landlord and Tenant Covenants Act 1995 3
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromEdlington Properties Ltd v J H Fenner and Co Ltd QBD 20-Oct-2005
The landlord sought repayment of arrears of rent. The tenant sought to raise a set off which had arisen against the landlord’s predecessor arising from defects in the property they had constructed.
Held: The tenant had no right of set off. . .
CitedBritish Anzani (Felixstowe) Ltd v International Marine Management (UK) Ltd ChD 19-Dec-1978
Money expended by a tenant on discharging his landlord’s covenants will in appropriate circumstances operate as a partial or a complete discharge so as to furnish a defence at law to a claim for unpaid rent; and where the tenant has suffered damage . .
CitedSpencer’s Case 1583
An assignee of a lease will take both the benefit and burden of the covenants in the lease provided that there is privity of estate as between the person enforcing the covenant and the person against whom enforcement is sought, and the covenant . .
CitedCorporation of City of London v Fell and Others HL 3-Dec-1993
The original tenant under a lease was not liable for arrears of rent on a tenancy continued after an assignment and after the original contract term has ended. The right of a transferee of the reversion to recover rent is, both in common law and . .
CitedDuncliffe v Caefelin Properties Ltd ChD 1989
The defendants had taken an assignment of the reversion of a flat held on a long lease. The assignors had gone into liquidation when in prolonged breach of the lessor’s repairing covenant. The lessee asserted that the effect of s.142 on an . .
CitedReeves v Pope CA 1914
The potential landlord agreed with the proposed tenant to build a hotel by a date, and the tenant agreed to take a lease when it was ready. The building was late in completion. The tenant took the lease but without prejudice to his claim for . .
CitedPfeiffer GmbH v Arbuthnot Factors Limited 1988
Section 136 by its terms preserves the equitable rule that the debtor can rely on any rights of set-off which arose before he had notice of assignment . . .
CitedNational Provincial Bank Limited v Ainsworth HL 1965
The significance of the distinction between occupation and rights was that although the deserted wife was in actual occupation of the former matrimonial home, the quality of her rights was not such as to be capable of amounting to an overriding . .
CitedThe Mortgage Corporation Ltd v Ubah CA 21-Mar-1996
The respondent mortgagee had obtained an order for possession against the mortgagor freeholder, referred to in the judgment as ‘the Chief’, who had, prior to the mortgage, granted a tenancy to the appellant.
Held: The landlord’s retention of a . .
CitedRe Arrows Ltd (No 3) ChD 1992
Hoffmann explained the case of Reeves v Pope: ‘The reasoning of the Court of Appeal was that a mortgagee or transferee of a property subject to a lease does not become entitled to the rents . . as an assignee [of] a chose in action by the original . .
CitedLee-Parker v Izzett (1) ChD 1971
Money expended by a tenant on discharging his landlord’s covenants will in appropriate circumstances operate as a partial or a complete discharge so as to furnish a defence of set-off at law to a claim for unpaid rent. Justice Goff discussed the . .
CitedGreen v Rheinberg CA 1911
. .
CitedFederal Commerce Ltd v Molena Alpha Inc; (The ‘Nanfri’) CA 1978
The court considered whether claim as against a shipowner could be set off against sums due under a time charter hire.
Held: Save for any contractual provision to the contrary a tenant is entitled to deduct from the rent payable, so as to . .
CitedGovernment of Newfoundland v Newfoundland Railway PC 7-Feb-1888
A railway company and its assignees brought action the Government. Under the contract the company was to build a railway subsidised by the government. The railway was not completed. The parties disputed whether the contract was ‘entire’ and no part . .
CitedBeall v Smith CA 6-Dec-1873
Lord Justice James discussed the practice in the Court of Chancery on claims brought by people without mental capacity: ‘The law of the Court of Chancery undoubtedly is that in certain cases where there is a person of unsound mind, not so found by . .
CitedLotteryking Ltd v AMEC Properties Ltd ChD 1995
The tenant sought to prevent the sale of the landlord’s reversion until the lessor’s repairing obligations had been met. One of the grounds was that on a sale the tenant’s right of set-off would not pass.
Held: An order was refused. Lightman . .
CitedFamous Army Stores v Meehan 1993
. .
CitedBOC Group Plc v Centeon Llc and Centeon Bio-Services Inc CA 29-Apr-1999
The court was asked whether a clause in a share sale agreement setting out the payment obligation worked to preclude the purchaser from exercising a right of set-off when the time comes to pay a later instalment of the price.
Held: The appeal . .
CitedMellowes Archital Limited v Bell Projects Limited CA 15-Oct-1997
The court referred to ‘the distinction between the common law defence of abatement and the defence of equitable set-off’. . .
CitedConnaught Restaurants Ltd v Indoor Leisure Ltd CA 17-Sep-1993
The lease provided the tenant would pay the rent ‘without any deduction’.
Held: The words ‘without any deductions’ in a lease were ambiguous and were insufficient to exclude the tenant’s right to claim a set off. Clear words are needed before . .
CitedMarubeni Corporation v Sea Containers Ltd ComC 17-May-1995
Procedure – set-off – contract for supply of containers – construction of contract – clear words to exclude right of set-off – equitable set-off – abatement – defective containers. The words ‘without deduction’ have been held in the context of a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 05 December 2021; Ref: scu.241388

Smith and Others v South Eastern Power Networks Plc: TCC 17 Sep 2012

Five Claims for damages for negligence said to relate to fires in five sets of premises, all of which started as a result of ‘resistive heating’ emanating in what are called ‘cut-out assemblies’.

Mr Justice Akenhead
[2012] EWHC 2541 (TCC), [2012] BLR 554
Bailii
England and Wales

Negligence, Construction

Updated: 05 December 2021; Ref: scu.464282

Hardy, Regina (On the Application of) v Milford Haven Port Authority and Others: CA 30 Nov 2007

Renewed application for permission to appeal against a refusal to give permission for judicial review of the respondent Port Authority’s refusal to disclose documents relevant to the safety of proposals for the construction and operation of two liquefied natural gas terminals at Milford Haven.

Lord Justice Toulson
[2007] EWCA Civ 1403
Bailii
England and Wales

Construction, Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.346262

Walker Construction (UK) Ltd v Quayside Homes Ltd and Another: CA 7 Feb 2014

Laws, McFarlane, Gloster LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 93, [2014] 1 CLC 121
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedAspect 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Construction

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.521054

Birse Construction Limited v St David Limited: TCC 12 Feb 1999

There are four approaches to deciding whether an arbitration agreement exists to which section 9 applies:- (1) to determine on the evidence before the court that such an agreement does exist in which case (if the disputes fall within the terms of that agreement) a stay must be granted, in the light of the mandatory ‘shall’ in section 9(4). It is this mandatory provision which is the statutory enactment of the relevant Article of the New York Convention, to which the United Kingdom is a party; (2) to stay the proceedings on the basis that it will be left to the arbitrators to determine their own jurisdiction pursuant to section 30 of the 1996 Act, taking into account the subsequent provisions in the 1996 Act for challenge to any decision eventually made by the arbitrators; (3) not to decide the issue but to make directions pursuant to what is now CPR Part 62.8 for an issue to be tried as to whether an arbitration agreement does indeed exist; (4) to decide that no arbitration agreement exists and to dismiss the application to stay.

HHJ Humphrey Lloyd
[1999] EWHC Technology 253, (1999) BLR 194
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedFiona Trust and Holding Corporation and others v Privalov and others CA 24-Jan-2007
The court was asked whether when contracts have been induced by bribery and have been rescinded on discovery of the bribery, that constitutes a dispute which can be determined by arbitration in the context of a common form of arbitration clause.
Construction, Arbitration

Updated: 27 November 2021; Ref: scu.136058

Macob Civil Engineering Ltd v Morrison Construction Ltd: TCC 12 Feb 1999

Once made, an award by an adjudicator under the Scheme was enforceable immediately and should be enforced by writ and application for summary judgment, provided only that the arbitrator had jurisdiction to make the award. It remained payable immediately despite any intention to challenge. The Act and Regulations were discussed by the Court: ‘The intention of Parliament in enacting the Act was plain. It was to introduce a speedy mechanism for settling disputes in construction contracts on a provisional interim basis, and requiring the decisions of adjudicators to be enforced pending final determination of disputes by arbitration, litigation or agreement: see section 108(3) of the Act and paragraph 23(2) of Part 1 of the Scheme. The timetable for adjudications is very tight (see section 108 of the Act). Many would say unreasonably tight, and likely to result in injustice. Parliament must be taken to have been aware of this. So far as procedure is concerned, the adjudicator is given a fairly free hand. It is true (but hardly surprising) that he is required to act impartially (s 108(2)(e) of the Act and paragraph 12(a) of Part 1 of the Scheme). He is, however, permitted to take the initiative in ascertaining the facts and the law (s 108(2)(f) of the Act and paragraph 13 of Part 1 of the Scheme). He may, therefore, conduct an entirely inquisitorial process, or he may, as in the present case, invite representations from the parties. It is clear that Parliament intended that the adjudication should be conducted in a manner which those familiar with the grinding detail of the traditional approach to the resolution of construction disputes apparently find difficult to accept. But Parliament has not abolished arbitration and litigation of construction disputes. It has merely introduced an intervening provisional stage in the dispute resolution process. Crucially, it has made it clear that decisions of adjudicators are binding and are to be complied with until the dispute is finally resolved.’

Dyson J
Gazette 10-Mar-1999, Times 11-Mar-1999, [1999] EWHC Technology 254, (1999) 64 Con LR 1, [1999] BLR 93
Bailii
Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998 (1988 No 649)
England and Wales
Cited by:
DistinguishedRitchie Brothers (Pwc) Limited v David Philp (Commercials) Limited IHCS 24-Mar-2005
The adjudicator had delivered his decision out of time. The pursuer sought to enforce it. The defender aid that if it was delivered out of time it was void.
Held: The expiry of the time limit deprived the arbitrator of jursidcition to decide . .
CitedRitchie Brothers (Pwc) Limited v David Philp (Commercials) Limited IHCS 24-Mar-2005
The adjudicator had delivered his decision out of time. The pursuer sought to enforce it. The defender aid that if it was delivered out of time it was void.
Held: The expiry of the time limit deprived the arbitrator of jursidcition to decide . .
ApprovedTally Wiejl (UK) Ltd v Pegram Shopfitters Ltd CA 21-Nov-2003
. .
CitedCarillion Construction Ltd v Devonport Royal Dockyard TCC 26-Apr-2005
Application for leave to appeal against arbitrator’s award in construction dispute.
Held: The appeal was declined. . .
CitedCarillion Construction Ltd v Devonport Royal Dockyard Ltd CA 16-Nov-2005
The parties had disputed payments for subcontracting work on a major project. The matter had been referred to arbitration, and the claimants now appealed refusal of leave to appeal the adjudicator’s award.
Held: The dispute was complex and . .
CitedDiscain Project Services Ltd v Opecrime Development Ltd TCC 11-Apr-2001
. .
CitedAlexander and Law Ltd v Coveside (21BPR) Ltd TCC 12-Dec-2013
The claimant sought to enforce an arbitration award. The respondent resisted, saying that the claimant faced unresolved insolvency proceedings, and may be unable to repay any sum later found due. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Arbitration

Updated: 27 November 2021; Ref: scu.136059

Henry Boot Construction Limited v Alstom Combined Cycles Limited (Formerly GEC Alsthom Combined Cycles Limited): TCC 22 Jan 1999

Humphrey Lloyd QC
[1999] EWHC Technology 263
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedAlstom Combined Cycles Ltd v Henry Boot Plc TCC 1-May-2001
. .

Cited by:
See AlsoAlstom Combined Cycles Ltd v Henry Boot Plc TCC 1-May-2001
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration, Construction

Updated: 27 November 2021; Ref: scu.136065

Leyton Sixth Form College v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 13 Nov 2013

FTTTx VALUE ADDED TAX – construction of buildings – whether zero-rated or standard-rated supplies – whether construction of a building by a college was an enlargement of, or an extension to, an existing building, or the construction of an annexe to an existing building – whether, if an annexe, it was capable of functioning independently from the existing building, and whether there is one main access to annexe and existing building – construction was an extension to an existing building and therefore supplies standard-rated – appeal dismissed – VATA 1994, Schedule 8, Group 5, Item 2 and Notes 16 and 17

[2013] UKFTT 660 (TC)
Bailii
Value Added Tax Act 1994

VAT, Construction

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518618

Burton v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 23 Jul 2013

FTTTx VALUE ADDED TAX – DIY builders scheme – conversion of barn adjacent to a dwelling (a listed building) to enlarge the dwelling – whether the works were ‘a residential conversion’ within the meaning of section 35(1A)(c) VATA – whether works consisted in the conversion of a ‘non-residential building’ or a ‘non-residential part of a building’ into a building designed as a dwelling or a number of dwellings – held they were not – the works were therefore not a ‘residential conversion’ within section 35 VATA – whether the Tribunal could consider and give effect to any legitimate expectation of the appellant that he would qualify for a refund under section 35 VATA – held, following HMRC v Abdul Noor [2012] UKUT 071 (TCC), that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the question of legitimate expectation – appeal dismissed

[2013] UKFTT 401 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

VAT, Construction

Updated: 20 November 2021; Ref: scu.515177

DBE Energy Ltd v Biogas Products Ltd: TCC 18 May 2020

Alleged breach of contract and/or negligence of the Defendant in relation to the design, manufacture and supply of components required by the Claimant for incorporation into its newly built anaerobic digestion facility

[2020] EWHC 1232 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Main judgmentDBE Energy Ltd v Biogas Products Ltd TCC 20-May-2020
Consequential matters relating to interest and costs. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.653324

Astral Construction Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 2 Jul 2013

FTTTx VAT – zero rating – building work – construction of residential care home integrating existing church – whether taken out of zero rating by being works of enlargement, extension, or conversion – Value Added Tax Act 1994 Schedule 5 Group 8 Item 2 – appeal allowed

[2013] UKFTT 374 (TC)
Bailii
Value Added Tax Act 1994
England and Wales

VAT, Construction

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.513507

Base Brickwork (A Firm) v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 22 Aug 2012

Construction Industry Scheme – cancellation of gross payment registration – breaches of compliance test – whether reasonable excuse under para 8(3) sch 11 FA 2004 – whether forgiveness under reg 32 Income Tax (Construction Industry Scheme) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005/2045) – appeal dismissed

[2012] UKFTT 536 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax, Construction

Updated: 15 November 2021; Ref: scu.466069

Reed v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 28 Jan 2011

FTTTx INCOME TAX – schedule D – trade – deduction – expenses – building subcontractor – working at different building sites for successive short periods – cost of travel between home and site – appeal succeeds

Jennifer Trigger (Judge)
[2011] UKFTT 92 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax, Construction

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.442829

Kmiecic v Isaacs: QBD 12 Mar 2010

The claimant sought damages after suffering injury when falling from a ladder working on the uninsured builder’s site. He sued the owners of the property, saying that by refusing to allow or pay for the work to be conducted in safer ways, she had taken control over the works and made herself responsible, pointing to differences in the regulations.
Held: Swift J said: ‘The 2005 Regulations apply, in the case of a non-employer, to ‘work by a person under his control, to the extent of his control’. The 1996 Regulations impose a duty on a non-employer who ‘controls the way in which the construction work is carried out by a person at work’ to comply with the Regulations ‘insofar as they relate to matters which are within his control’ . . the defendant did not assume control over the claimant, in the sense of being able to direct how he carried out his work. She was entitled to – and did – impose limits on (and thereby control) his access to her property, by refusing him entry to the house for the purpose of gaining access to the roof. She did that in her capacity as an occupier, not as a person controlling the way in which he carried out his work.’ The defendant did not owe the duty claimed, his employer did.

Swift J
[2010] EWHC 381 (QB)
Bailii
Work at Height Regulations 2005, Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996, Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedJennings v The Forestry Commission CA 23-May-2008
The claimant was a self employed contractor. He suffered serious injuries when while working for the defendant, his vehicle overturned. The defendant appealed against the finding of liability. The Land Rover went out of control on a steeply sloping . .
CitedMccook v Lobo and others CA 19-Nov-2002
The defendant was the occupier of premises. He did not direct how the work should be done and was not present at the time the work was being performed.
Held: He had not been in control of the relevant work. Judge LJ referred to Regulation 4(2) . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Health and Safety, Construction

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.402624

Balfour Beatty Regional Construction Ltd v Grove Developments Ltd: CA 13 Oct 2016

Contractor’s responsibility for stage payments

Appeal by a building contractor against a decision that there is no entitlement to interim payments in the period after the contractual date for practical completion. The principal issues are (i) how some rather unusual amendments to the standard form building contract should be construed and (ii) how section 109 of the 1996 Act applies in the circumstances of this case.

Longmore, Jackson, Vos LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 990, [2016] WLR(D) 522
Bailii, WLRD
Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 109
England and Wales

Construction, Contract

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.570174

Principal and Fellows of Newnham College In the University of Cambridge v Revenue and Customs: HL 16 Apr 2008

A new library had been built for the college. A company owned by the college took a lease of it from the college, and reclaimed the input tax paid on construction. The company managed the library.
Held: The Revenue’s appeal failed. The question was whether the college was in occupation of the library, either alone or together with the company. The Act could not be read as desired by the Revenue to include in the idea of occupation, any occupation of whatever nature.

Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Mance and Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury
[2008] 2 All ER 863, [2008] 16 EG 152, [2008] BTC 5330, [2008] STC 1225, [2008] STI 1231, [2008] BVC 452, [2008] NPC 45, [2008] 1 WLR 888, [2008] UKHL 23, Times 17-Apr-2008
Bailii, HL
Value Added Tax Act 1994, Finance Act 1997 37
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromNewnham College Cambridge v Revenue and Customs CA 24-Mar-2006
The College had decided to demolish and rebuild its library. It elected to waive exemption to VAT so as to recover the VAT on its rebuilding costs. It had set up and funded an independent company to carry out the works, granting it a lease of the . .

Cited by:
CitedWaterside Escapes Ltd v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 13-Oct-2020
Qualifying Property Rental – Stamp Duty Relief
SDLT – higher threshold interest 15% rate – relief for a qualifying property rental business – intention that a non-qualifying individual be permitted to occupy a dwelling on the land (paragraph 5(2), Schedule 4A, FA 2003) – whether a non-qualifying . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Construction

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.266935

The New Deer Community Association v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 11 Nov 2014

FTTTx ZERO RATING – Construction – Construction of a building intended for use for a relevant charitable purpose – building described as a new pavilion – whether use as a village hall or similarly in providing social or recreational facilities for a local community – In Part – whether available to the whole community to an extent of non sporting, social or recreational use – Yes – whether limited to members of the community who participate in sport and therefore constitute a special interest group – No – Schedule 8, Group 5, Notes (2), (6) and (10), VATA 1994. Appeal allowed in part.

[2014] UKFTT 1028 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Construction, Charity, VAT

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.539023

Radford v De Froberville: 2 Jan 1977

A contract was made for the sale of a plot of land adjoining a house belonging to the plaintiff (the vendor) but occupied by his tenants, under which the defendant (the purchaser) undertook to build a house on the plot and also to erect a wall to a certain specification on the plot so as to separate it from the plaintiff’s land. The plaintiff obtained judgment against the defendant for damages for breach of contract by reason of her failure to erect the dividing wall, but an issue arose as to the measure of the damages. The defendant having failed to build the dividing wall on the land purchased from the plaintiff, the plaintiff proposed to build a dividing wall on his own land, and claimed the cost of doing so from the defendant; whereas the defendant maintained that the appropriate measure of damages was the consequent diminution in the value of the plaintiff’s property, which was nil.
Held: The court described the distinction made in the Liesbosch between a plaintiff’s capacity to mitigate his loss and his duty to do so: ‘No doubt the measure of damages and the plaintiff’s duty and ability to mitigate are logically distinct concepts (see for instance, the speech of Lord Wright in Liesbosch (Dredger) v SS Edison (Owners) [1933] AC 449, 456-469). But to some extent, at least, they are mirror images . .’
A contracting party should not use the remedy of damages to recover ‘an uncovenanted profit.’ However: ‘If [the plaintiff] contracts for the supply of that which he thinks serves his interests – be they commercial, aesthetic or merely eccentric – then if that which is contracted for is not supplied by the other contracting party I do not see why, in principle, he should not be compensated by being provided with the cost of supplying it through someone else or in a different way, subject to the proviso, of course, that he is seeking compensation for a genuine loss and not merely using a technical breach to secure an uncovenanted profit.’ It was for the plaintiff to judge what performance he required in exchange for the price. The court should honour that choice.
Oliver J said: ‘In the instant case, the plaintiff says in evidence that he wishes to carry out the work on his own land and there are, as it seems to me, three questions that I have to answer. First, am I satisfied on the evidence that the plaintiff has a genuine and serious intention of doing the work? Secondly, is the carrying out of the work on his own land a reasonable thing for the plaintiff to do? Thirdly, does it make any difference that the plaintiff is not personally in occupation of the land but desires to do the work for the benefit of his tenants?’
and: ‘Once proceedings have been commenced and are defended, I do not think that the defendant can complain that it is unreasonable for the plaintiff to delay carrying out the work for himself before the damages have been assessed, more particularly where his right to any damages at all is being contested, for he may never recoup the cost. If, therefore, the proceedings are conducted with due expedition, there seems to me to be no injustice if, by reason of the time that it takes for them to come to trial, the result of inflation is to increase the pecuniary amount of the defendant’s ultimate liability …’

Oliver J
[1977] 1 WLR 1262, [1978] 1 All ER 33
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedLiesbosch Dredger (Owners of) v Owners of SS Edison, The Liesbosch HL 28-Feb-1933
The ship Edison fouled the moorings of the Liesbosch resulting in the total loss of the dredger when it sank. It had been engaged on work in the harbour under contract with the harbour board. All the owners’ liquid resources were engaged in the . .
CitedJackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd CA 5-Feb-1974
A family claimed damages for a disappointing holiday. The generous measure of damages given to the father was that the father was being fully compensated for his own mental distress, but the rule of privity of contract operated to bar the claim for . .
CitedTito v Waddell (No 2); Tito v Attorney General ChD 1977
Equity applies its doctrines to the substance, not the form, of transactions. In respect of the rule against self dealing for trustees ‘But of course equity looks beneath the surface, and applies its doctrines to cases where, although in form a . .

Cited by:
CitedLagden v O’Connor HL 4-Dec-2003
The parties had been involved in a road traffic accident. The defendant drove into the claimant’s parked car. The claimant was unable to afford to hire a car pending repairs being completed, and arranged to hire a car on credit. He now sought . .
ApprovedDodd Properties (Kent) Ltd v Canterbury City Council CA 21-Dec-1979
The defendants had, in the course of building operations, caused nuisance and damage to the plaintiff’s building. The dispute was very lengthy, the costs of repair increased accordingly, and the parties now disputed the date at which damages fell to . .
CitedAlfred Mcalpine Construction Limited v Panatown Limited HL 17-Feb-2000
A main contractor who was building not on his own land, would only be free to claim damages from a sub-contractor for defects in the building where the actual owner of the land would not also have had a remedy. Here, the land owner was able to sue . .
CitedGolden Strait Corporation v Nippon Yusen Kubishka Kaisha (‘The Golden Victory’) HL 28-Mar-2007
The claimant sought damages for repudiation of a charterparty. The charterpary had been intended to continue until 2005. The charterer repudiated the contract and that repudiation was accepted, but before the arbitrator could set his award, the Iraq . .
CitedJohnson v Agnew HL 1979
The seller had obtained a summary order for specific performance of a contract for the sale of land against the buyer.
Held: The breach was continuing and was still capable of being remedied by compliance with the order for specific . .
CitedAlcoa Minerals of Jamaica Inc v Herbert Broderick PC 20-Mar-2000
(Jamaica) Damage had been caused to the claimant’s property, but, because of his lack of funds, he was dependent upon the receipt of the damages to carry out the works of repair necessary. By the time the matter came to trial, inflation meant that . .
CitedRuxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth HL 29-Jun-1995
Damages on Construction not as Agreed
The appellant had contracted to build a swimming pool for the respondent, but, after agreeing to alter the specification to construct it to a certain depth, in fact built it to the original lesser depth, Damages had been awarded to the house owner . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Construction

Leading Case

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.188657

Puffer v Unabhangiger Finanzsenat Aussenstelle Linz (Approximation Of Laws): ECJ 11 Dec 2008

Mixed Use – VAT on construction Costs

Europa VAT – Building used partly for private purposes and partly for taxable business purposes – Right to deduct input tax on construction costs – Allocation to business use with immediate deduction of all input tax and private use subject to output tax, or pro rata deduction of input tax according to proportions of business and private use – Equal treatment – Validity of national exclusion from right to deduct.

C-460/07, [2008] EUECJ C-460/07, [2009] EUECJ C-460/07
Bailii, Bailii
European

VAT, Construction

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.278692

Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth: HL 29 Jun 1995

Damages on Construction not as Agreed

The appellant had contracted to build a swimming pool for the respondent, but, after agreeing to alter the specification to construct it to a certain depth, in fact built it to the original lesser depth, Damages had been awarded to the house owner against a builder at the cost of recreating a swimming pool which would fit the initial description.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The damages award was disproportionate, and should have been limited to the loss of amenity only. The cost of reinstatement or reconstruction may be an inappropriate standard if it was disproportionate to the loss. ‘There are not two alternative measures of damages, as opposite poles, but only one; namely, the loss truly suffered by the promisee.’ Where the defect is minor it may be appropriate for an award for disappointed expectation rather than any difference in value. The fact that such damages could not be calculated mathematically did not mean they could not be calculated.
HL Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle said: ‘Damages are designed to compensate for an established loss and not provide a gratuitous benefit for an aggrieved party from which it follows that the reasonableness of an award of damages is to be linked directly to the loss sustained does not extend to the need to reinstate.’ and
‘What constitutes the aggrieved party’s loss is in every case a question of fact and degree. Where the contract breaker has entirely failed to achieve the contractual objective it may not be difficult to conclude that the loss is the necessary cost of achieving that objective. Thus if a building is constructed so defectively that it is of no use for its designed purpose the owner may have little difficulty in establishing that his loss is the necessary cost of reconstructing. Furthermore in taking reasonableness into account in determining the extent of loss it is reasonableness in relation to the particular contract and not at large.’
Lord Mustill stated: ‘the law must cater for those occasions where the value of the promise to the promisee exceeds the financial enhancement of his position which full performance will secure. This excess . . is usually incapable of precise valuation in terms of money, exactly because it represents a personal, subjective and non-monetary gain. Nevertheless where it exists the law should recognise it and compensate the promisee if the misperformance takes it away . . [I]n several fields the judges are well accustomed to putting figures to intangibles, and I see no reason why the imprecision of the exercise should be a barrier, if that is what fairness demands.’

Lord Mustill, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle
Independent 12-Jul-1995, Gazette 06-Sep-1995, Times 03-Jul-1995, [1996] 1 AC 344, [1995] 3 WLR 118, [1995] UKHL 8, [1995] CLC 905, [1995] 3 All ER 268
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromRuxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth CA 7-Jan-1994
In 1986, the defendant, wanted a swimming pool adjoining his house. He contracted with the plaintiffs. The contract price for the pool, with certain extras, was 17,797.40 pounds including VAT. The depth of the pool was to be 6 ft 6 in at the deep . .
ConsideredAddis v Gramophone Company Limited HL 26-Jul-1909
Mr Addis was wrongfully and contumeliously dismissed from his post as the defendant’s manager in Calcutta. He sought additional damages for the manner of his dismissal.
Held: It did not matter whether the claim was under wrongful dismissal. . .
ConsideredJacob and Youngs v Kent 1921
. .
ConsideredEast Ham Corporation v Bernard Sunley and Sons Ltd HL 1965
In cases in which the plaintiff is seeking damages for the defective performance of a building contract, which is a contract for labour and materials, the normal measure of his damages is the cost of carrying out remedial work, or re-instatement. . .
CitedDarlington Borough Council v Wiltshier Northern Ltd and Others CA 29-Jun-1994
The council owned land on which it wanted to build a recreational centre. Construction contracts were entered into not by the council but by a finance company, the building contractors being the respondents Wiltshier Northern Ltd. The finance . .
CitedRobinson v Harman 18-Jan-1848
Damages for breach of contract should compensate the victim of the breach for the loss of his contractual bargain. Baron Parke said: ‘The next question is: What damages is the plaintiff entitled to recover? The rule of the common law is, that where . .
CitedBritish Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co v Underground Electric Railways Co (London) Limited HL 1912
The plaintiffs purchased eight steam turbines from the defendants. They later proved defective, and the plaintiffs sought damages. In the meantime they purchased replacements, more effective than the original specifications. In the result the . .
CitedJacob and Youngs Inc v Kent 1921
Court of Appeals of New York. A building contract specified that the plumbing should use a particular type of piping. In fact the builder used a different type of piping. Cardozo J. stated: ‘In the circumstances of this case, we think the measure of . .
CitedBellgrove v Eldridge 1954
High Court of Australia. The builder built a house with defective foundations, as a result of which the house was unstable. The building owner brought an action against the builder claiming the cost of reinstatement.
Held: His claim succeeded . .
CitedTito v Waddell (No 2); Tito v Attorney General ChD 1977
Equity applies its doctrines to the substance, not the form, of transactions. In respect of the rule against self dealing for trustees ‘But of course equity looks beneath the surface, and applies its doctrines to cases where, although in form a . .
CitedRadford v De Froberville 2-Jan-1977
A contract was made for the sale of a plot of land adjoining a house belonging to the plaintiff (the vendor) but occupied by his tenants, under which the defendant (the purchaser) undertook to build a house on the plot and also to erect a wall to a . .
CitedMinscombe Properties Ltd v Sir Alfred McAlpine and Sons Ltd CA 1986
O’Connor LJ applied the test of reasonableness in determining whether the cost of reinstatement of land to its contracted for condition should be recoverable as damages. . .
CitedImodco Ltd v Wimpey Major Projects Ltd CA 1987
Glidewell LJ stated that the cost of work to put pipes in the position contracted for would be recoverable if there was an intention to carry out the work and if it was reasonable so to do. . .
CitedMottram Consultants Ltd v Bernard Sunley and Sons Ltd HL 1975
Stone panels which had been fixed to the external walls of a school fell off, owing to defective fixing by the contractor.
Held: The contractor was liable for the cost of reinstating the stone panels, calculated at the date when the defect was . .
CitedG W Atkins Ltd v Scott CA 1980
A building owner complained of defective tiling installed by the appellant. He claimed the cost of retiling the whole roof. The county court judge found that the tiling was defective, but that the defects were mostly cosmetic and of a minor . .
CitedC R Taylor (Wholesale) Ltd v Hepworths Ltd 1977
May J referred with approval to a statement in McGregor On Damages (13th edn, 1972) paras 1059-1061 that in deciding between diminution in value and cost of reinstatement the appropriate test was the reasonableness of the plaintiffs desire to . .
CitedChannel Island Ferries Ltd v Cenargo Navigation Ltd (The Rozel) QBD 5-Apr-1994
Arbitrator to award all costs even if award much less than original claim.
Phillips J said: ‘It is always necessary to exercise the greatest care before applying the reasoning in one case to a different factual situation, and this is . .
CitedDarlington Borough Council v Wiltshier Northern Ltd CA 28-Jun-1994
The plaintiff council complained of the work done for it by the defendant builder.
Held: Steyn LJ said: ‘in the case of a building contract, the prima facie rule is cost of cure, i.e., the cost of remedying the defect: East Ham Corporation v. . .
CitedJarvis v Swans Tours Ltd CA 16-Oct-1972
The plaintiff had booked a holiday through the defendant travel tour company. He claimed damages after the holiday failed to live up to expectations.
Held: In appropriate cases where one party contracts to provide entertainment and enjoyment, . .
CitedJackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd CA 5-Feb-1974
A family claimed damages for a disappointing holiday. The generous measure of damages given to the father was that the father was being fully compensated for his own mental distress, but the rule of privity of contract operated to bar the claim for . .
CitedSealace Shipping Co Ltd v Oceanvoice Ltd, The Alecos M CA 1991
The parties contracted for the sale of a ship, including a spare propeller. When the ship was delivered there was no spare propeller. It was common ground that there was no market for secondhand propellers. So the only way of providing a spare . .

Cited by:
CitedFarley v Skinner HL 11-Oct-2001
The claimant sought damages from the defendant surveyor. He had asked the defendant whether the house he was to buy was subject to aircraft noise. After re-assurance, he bought the house. The surveyor was wrong and negligent. A survey would not . .
CitedSmith New Court Securities Ltd v Scrimgeour Vickers HL 21-Nov-1996
The defendant had made misrepresentations, inducing the claimant to enter into share transactions which he would not otherwise have entered into, and which lost money.
Held: A deceitful wrongdoer is properly liable for all actual damage . .
CitedHunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd HL 25-Apr-1997
The claimant, in a representative action complained that the works involved in the erection of the Canary Wharf tower constituted a nuisance in that the works created substantial clouds of dust and the building blocked her TV signals, so as to limit . .
CitedAlfred Mcalpine Construction Limited v Panatown Limited HL 17-Feb-2000
A main contractor who was building not on his own land, would only be free to claim damages from a sub-contractor for defects in the building where the actual owner of the land would not also have had a remedy. Here, the land owner was able to sue . .
CitedPegler Ltd v Wang (UK) Ltd TCC 25-Feb-2000
Standard Conract – Wide Exclusions, Apply 1977 Act
The claimant had acquired a computer system from the defendant, which had failed. It was admitted that the contract had been broken, and the court set out to decide the issue of damages.
Held: Even though Wang had been ready to amend one or . .
CitedCatlin Estates Ltd and Another v Carter Jonas (A Firm) TCC 31-Oct-2005
The defendants had been employed to manage a building project which it was said went wrong. The court had to consider several different factual claims. . .
CitedLatimer and Another v Carney and others CA 27-Oct-2006
The landlords appealed disissal of their request for relief against their tenants for non-repair of the premises. The judge had held that the landlord had not provided appropriate evidence of the damage and costs of repair which it claimed.
CitedJohnson v Gore Wood and Co HL 14-Dec-2000
Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses
A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter.
Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder . .
CitedRegus (Uk) Ltd v Epcot Solutions Ltd ComC 4-May-2007
Claim for unpaid fees for the use of serviced office accommodation and a very large counter-claim for mis-representation and breach of contract over allegedly defective air conditioning. . .
CitedDobson and others v Thames Water Utilities Ltd and Another CA 29-Jan-2009
The claimants complained of odours and mosquitoes affecting their properties from the activities of the defendants in the conduct of their adjoining Sewage Treatment plant. The issue was as to the rights of non title holders to damages in nuisance . .
CitedMorris-Garner and Another v One Step (Support) Ltd SC 18-Apr-2018
The Court was asked in what circumstances can damages for breach of contract be assessed by reference to the sum that the claimant could hypothetically have received in return for releasing the defendant from the obligation which he failed to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Damages, Contract

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.88938

J and M Interiors (Scotland) Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 13 Feb 2014

FTTTx CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY SCHEME – failure to deduct tax from payments made to sub-contractors – whether contractor took reasonable care – yes – whether error made in good faith – yes – appeal allowed – Regulation 9 Income Tax (Construction Industry Scheme) Regulations 2005

[2014] UKFTT 183 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax, Construction

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.521790

Direktor Na Direktsia v Orfey Balgaria Eood: ECJ 19 Dec 2012

dndirektsia_obeECJ2012

ECJ VAT – Directive 2006/112/EC – Articles 63, 65, 73 and 80 – Establishment by natural persons of a building right in favour of a company in exchange for construction services by that company for those persons – Barter contract – VAT on construction services – Chargeable event – When chargeable – Payment on account of the entire consideration – Payment on account – Basis of assessment for a transaction in the event of consideration in the form of goods or services – Direct effect

C Toader, acting P
C-549/11, [2012] EUECJ C-549/11
Bailii
Directive 2006/112/EC

European, VAT, Construction

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.468764

Mitsui Construction Co Ltd v Attorney General of Hong Kong: PC 1986

Lord Bridge said that poor drafting in a contract itself provides: ‘no reason to depart from the fundamental rule of construction of contractual documents that the intention of the parties must be ascertained from the language that they have used interpreted in the light of the relevant factual situation in which the contract was made. But the poorer the quality of the drafting, the less willing the court should be to be driven by semantic niceties to attribute to the parties an improbable and unbusinesslike intention, if the language used, whatever it may lack in precision, is reasonably capable of an interpretation which attributes to the parties an intention to make provision for contingencies inherent in the work contracted for on a sensible and businesslike basis.’

Lord Bridge of Harwich
(1986) 33 BLR 14
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedGan Insurance Co Ltd v Tai Ping Insurance Co Ltd CA 3-Jul-2001
A reinsurance contract which contained a clause which provided that no settlement or compromise of a claim could be made or liability admitted by the insured without the prior approval of the reinsurers. The court considered how the discretion to . .
CitedSinochem International Oil (London) Co Ltd v Mobil Sales and Supply Corporaton and Another CA 17-Feb-2000
. .
CitedOxonica Energy Ltd v Neuftec Ltd PatC 5-Sep-2008
The parties disputed the meaning of an patent and know how licence. The parties disputed whether the agreement referred to IP rights before formal patents had been granted despite the terms of the agreement.
Held: ‘The secret of drafting legal . .
CitedMulti-Link Leisure Developments Ltd v Lanarkshire Council SC 17-Nov-2010
The parties disputed the effect of an option clause in a lease, and particularly whether, when fixing the price, potential for development was to be included. The clause required the ‘full market value’ to be paid. The tenant appealed.
Held: . .
CitedRainy Sky Sa and Others v Kookmin Bank SC 2-Nov-2011
Commercial Sense Used to Interpret Contract
The Court was asked as to the role of commercial good sense in the construction of a term in a contract which was open to alternative interpretations.
Held: The appeal succeeded. In such a case the court should adopt the more, rather than the . .
CitedMT Hojgaard As v EON Climate and Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Ltd and Another SC 3-Aug-2017
The defendants had requested tenders for the design and construction of an offshore wind farm. The court now considered the situation arising because of inconsistencies between documents in the tender request. The successful tender was based upon an . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Commonwealth, Contract

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.273182

Aldi Stores Ltd v WSP Group Plc and others: CA 28 Nov 2007

Aldi appealed against an order striking out as an abuse of process its claims against the defendant on a construction dispute. The defendant said the claims should have been brought as part of earlier proceedings.
Held: The appeal succeeded. In reaching the decision, the court had taken into account matters which were irrelevant. The fact that a claim might have been raised in earlier proceedings was not conclusive to establish abuse of process. Whether a second claim is abusive calls for an exercise of judgment. It is not an exercise of discretion. Rather, it is a question to which, ultimately, there is only a correct answer. The court must look at all the circumstances. Nor was the fact that a decision made by a party in complex proceedings which might result in the use of greater judicial time necessarily an abuse. It was for the state to provide the necessary resources and there are other constraints on parties who might proceed in this way and which were short of denying them justice. If was for the defendant to prove the claim to be an abuse, and it had not discharged that burden. The issue of abuse engages both the public interest, which is concerned with the finality of litigation and the efficient management of litigation, and the private interest of the claimant seeking access to the court.
Thomas LJ said: ‘I do not see how the mere fact that this action may require a trial and hence take up judicial time (which could have been saved if Aldi had exercised its right to bring an action in a different way) can make the action impermissible. If an action can be properly brought, it is the duty of the state to provide the necessary resources; the litigant cannot be denied the right to bring a claim (for which he in any event pays under the system which operates in England and Wales) on the basis that he could have acted differently and so made more efficient use of the court’s resources. . The problems which have arisen in this case should have been dealt with through case management.’

Longmore LJ, Thomas LJ, Wall LJ
[2007] EWCA Civ 1260, Times 04-Dec-2007, [2008] BLR 1, [2008] CILL 2549, [2008] 115 Con LR 49, [2008] CP Rep 10, [2008] PNLR 14, [2008] 1 WLR 748, (2008) 24 Const LJ 334
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedJohnson v Gore Wood and Co HL 14-Dec-2000
Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses
A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter.
Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder . .
Appeal fromAldi Stores Ltd v WSP Group Plc and others TCC 15-Jan-2007
. .
CitedDexter Ltd v Vlieland-Boddy CA 2003
The court discussed the significance of Johnson v Gore Wood.
Clarke LJ said: ‘The principles to be derived from the authorities, of which by far the most important is Johnson v Gore Wood and Co [2002] 2 AC 1, can be summarised as follows:
Cited by:
CitedMardas v New York Times Company and Another QBD 17-Dec-2008
The claimant sought damages in defamation. The US publisher defendants denied that there had been any sufficient publication in the UK and that the court did not have jurisdiction. The claimant appealed the strike out of the claims.
Held: The . .
CitedWalbrook Trustees (Jersey) Ltd and Others v Fattal and Others CA 8-Apr-2009
The parties had been involved in serial disputes regarding the management of leasehold apartments. It was now objected that the current case was an abuse of process.
Held: The appeal against the stay succeeded. The new case had been flagged up . .
CitedWahab v Khan and Others; In re Abdus Sattar Sheikh deceased ChD 12-Apr-2011
The claimant had asked the court to revoke the probate granted in his brother’s estate. He appealed now against a strike out of his request. He alleged that the will was a forgery. The executor’s and defendants were not relations of the deceased, . .
CitedGladman Commercial Properties v Fisher Hargreaves Proctor and Others CA 14-Nov-2013
The claimant appealed against the striking out of his claims for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation as to the suitability for deveopment of two former fire service properties. The court had said that a settlement with co-tortfeasors operated . .
CitedArcadia Group Ltd and Others v Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD 8-Feb-2019
Claimant’s application for leave to withdraw request for injunction to prevent publication of stories regarding matters subject to non-disclosure agreements.
Held: Granted. An junction had been granted, but Lord Hain had disclosed protected . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Litigation Practice

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.261596

Brickfield Properties Ltd v Newton: CA 1971

Court’s Investigation of Construction Claims

The court heard an application to amend pleadings to add a claim about negligent supervision of a construction. Sachs LJ said: ‘Where there are found in completed buildings serious defects of the type here under review the facts relating to design, execution and superintendence are inextricably entangled until such time as the court succeeds in elucidating the position through evidence. The design has inevitably to be closely examined even if the only claim relates to superintendence, and all the more so if the designs are, as is further alleged here, experimental or such as need amplification in the construction progresses. The architect is under a continuing duty to check that his design will work in practice and to correct any errors as they emerge. It savours of the ridiculous for the architect to be able to say, as it was here suggested to him that he could say: ‘true, my design was faulty, but, of course, I saw to it that the contractors followed it faithfully’ and be enabled on that ground to succeed in the action.
The same, or substantially the same set of facts, falls to be investigated in relation to the design claim and the superintendence claim. The plans and specifications and ancillary documents are relevant to the superintendence claim as well as to the designer claim: hence the inability of the defendant to allege prejudice with regard to the preparation of his defence if this appeal is allowed. Accordingly, the ‘new cause of action’ falls within the ambit of RSC Ord. 20 r. 5(5), and it is one which the court has jurisdiction to permit to be pursued’.

Sachs LJ, Edmund Davies LJ
[1971] 1 WLR 862, [1971] 3 All ER 328
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRoberts v Gill and Co Solicitors and Others SC 19-May-2010
The claimant beneficiary in the estate sought damages against solicitors who had acted for the claimant’s brother, the administrator, saying they had allowed him to take control of the assets in the estate. The will provided that property was to be . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Construction

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.415957

Allen Wilson Joinery Ltd v Privetgrange Construction Ltd: TCC 17 Nov 2008

The claimant sought summary judgment to enforce an arbitration award in a construction dispute. The defendants argued that the contract was not sufficiently evidenced in writing to accord with the 1996 Act. The claimants replied that any oral variations were trivial.
Held: Akenhead J set out the requirements for writing as follows: ‘(a) For there to be a construction contract in writing for the purposes of Section 107 and Part II of the HGCRA, all the terms of the contract must be in writing and recorded in one of the ways set out in Section 107.
(b) Whilst adjudicators (and indeed judges) should be robust in determining whether trivial matters said to have been agreed only orally between the parties can prevent what would otherwise be a written contract for the purpose of Section 107 being a written contract, the exercise of determining what is trivial must be an objective one in relation to the particular contract and parties concerned. What may be ‘trivial’ in one contract may not be in another. Thus, for example, an oral agreement on a million pound project as to which of two mildly differing shades of light blue paint might be used may be trivial on one development but not on another.
(c) It is always necessary to determine whether a so-called agreement made orally was in reality expected or intended to be binding as between the parties. Thus, the parties having discussed and agreed something orally might later have reduced their agreement into writing in such a way as to supersede the earlier oral agreement. A later oral agreement may not be binding; for instance, it may lack consideration or otherwise may not be intended to be binding.’
Implied terms are placed in a contract by operation of law, and do not make the contract as whole not in writing. However in this case there was a triable issue as to whether some terms were sufficiently serious to mean that the contract was not in writing as required.

Akenhead J
[2008] EWHC 2802 (TCC), [2009] TCLR 1, 123 Con LR 1
Bailii
Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 107
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRJT Consulting Engineers Ltd v DM Engineering (NI) Ltd CA 8-Mar-2002
The court considered what would amount to a contract in writing under the 1996 Act. Ward LJ said: ‘Section 107(2) gives three categories where the agreement is to be treated in writing. The first is where the agreement, whether or not it is signed . .
CitedTrustees of the Stratfield SAYE Estate v AHL Construction Limited TCC 6-Dec-2004
The court was asked what was meant by a contract in writing under section 10. Jackson J applied RJT saying: ‘The principle of law which I derive from the majority judgments in RJT is this: an agreement is only evidenced in writing for the purposes . .
CitedConnex South Eastern Ltd v MJ Building Services Group Plc TCC 25-Jun-2004
The court was asked whether the existence of implied terms converts an otherwise written construction contract into one that is no longer a written contract for the purposes of Section 107. Richard Havery QC J said: ‘The first question I must . .
CitedGalliford Try Infrastructure Ltd and Another v Mott Macdonald Ltd TCC 17-Jul-2008
The court was asked whether the implication of terms into a written contract implied that it was not a contract in writing under ection 107. HHJ Seymour QC said: ‘it may be necessary to consider carefully the effect of s. 107 of the 1996 Act as . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Contract

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.277879

Steel v Young: SCS 11 Jan 1907

‘The main question to be disposed of under this appeal is that which is raised by the fact that the pursuer in building the walls of the house used milled lime instead of cement mortar as required by the specification.
In making that departure from the specification the pursuer was acting in accordance with the orders of the architect, but I am of opinion that nevertheless he must be regarded as being in breach of his contract in a question with the defender if the architect was not authorised by the latter to substitute the one material for the other.’

Lord Low
[1907] ScotCS CSIH – 4, 1907 SC 360, [1907] SLR 44 – 291
Bailii, Bailii
Scotland

Construction, Contract

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.279272

Rush and Tomkins Ltd v Greater London Council: HL 3 Nov 1988

The parties had entered into contracts for the construction of dwellings. The contractors sought payment. The council alleged shortcomings in the works. The principal parties had settled the dispute, but a sub-contractor now sought disclosure of the agreement so that it could pursue its own action. The council said that the document was covered by the without prejudice rule.
Held: When looking at without prejudice negotiations to decide on admissibility, it would be wrong to isolate admissions before admitting the rest. That would not allow the parties to speak freely about all issues in the litigation both factual and legal when seeking compromise and, for the purpose of establishing a basis of compromise, admitting certain facts. The rule applies ‘to exclude all negotiations genuinely aimed at settlement whether oral or in writing from being given in evidence.’

Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Brandon of Oakbrook, Lord Griffiths, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Goff of Chieveley
[1989] AC 1280, [1988] 3 WLR 939, [1988] 3 All ER 737, [1988] UKHL 7
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedCutts v Head and Another CA 7-Dec-1983
There had been a trial of 35 days regarding rights of way over land, which had proved fruitless, and where some orders had been made without jurisdiction. The result had been inconclusive. The costs order was now appealed, the plaintiff complaining . .
CitedWaldridge v Kennison 1794
A without prejudice admission that a document was in the handwriting of one of the parties was received in evidence because it was independent of the merits of the case. . .
CitedTomlin v Standard Telephones and Cables Ltd CA 1969
Without prejudice material can be admitted if the issue is whether or not the negotiations resulted in an agreed settlement. Without considering the communications in question it would be impossible to decide whether there was a concluded settlement . .
CitedIn Re Daintrey, Ex Parte Holt QBD 1893
The court was asked whether a letter could be admitted in evidence and relied upon as an act of bankruptcy. The letter was sent by the debtor to the creditor at a time when there was no dispute, headed ‘without prejudice’. It contained an offer of . .
CitedWalker v Wilsher CA 1889
Letters or conversations which were written or declared to be ‘without prejudice’ may not be taken into consideration in determining whether there is good cause for depriving a successful litigant of his costs.
Lord Esher MR said: ‘The letters . .
CitedKitcat v Sharp 1882
The plaintiff clergyman had begun his action for rescission of a contract with the defendant for misrepresentattion. The defendant sent him a ‘private and confidential’ letter threatening publication of the pleadings with comments depreciating the . .
CitedTeign Valley Mining Co. Ltd, v Woodcock 22-Jul-1899
A company claimed for money owed upon calls upon its shares. The defendant, Woodcock, admitted liability to the company but claimed against a Captain Rising that he held the shares as his nominee. The judge admitted in evidence terms of the . .
CitedRabin v Mendoza and Co CA 1954
The plaintiffs sued the defendants for negligence in surveying a property. Before the action commenced a meeting had taken place between the plaintiffs’ solicitor and a partner in the defendants’ firm of surveyors to see if the matter could be . .
CitedStretton v Stubbs Ltd CA 28-Feb-1905
(1905) The plaintiff, an artist had a judgment against him by a picture frame maker. It had been entered by consent under an agreement with the plaintiff’s solicitor that no publicity should be given to the result of the action. Nevertheless, the . .
CitedO’Rourke v Darbishire HL 1920
Sir Joseph Whitworth had died in 1887. In 1884 he had made a will appointing three executors and leaving his residuary estate to charity. By a codicil made in 1885 he altered his will to leave his ultimate residue to his executors for their own . .

Cited by:
CitedUnilever plc v Procter and Gamble Company CA 4-Nov-1999
The defendant’s negotiators had asserted in an expressly ‘without prejudice’ meeting, that the plaintiff was infringing its patent and they threatened to bring an action for infringement. The plaintiff sought to bring a threat action under section . .
CitedBerry Trade Ltd and Another v Moussavi and others CA 22-May-2003
A defendant appealed against an order admitting as evidence, records of ‘without prejudice’ conversations.
Held: Written and oral communications, which are made for the purpose of a genuine attempt to compromise a dispute between the parties, . .
CitedSavings and Investment Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) v Fincken CA 14-Nov-2003
Parties to litigation had made without prejudice disclosures. One party sought to give evidence contradicting the dsclosure, and the other now applied for leave to amend based upon the without prejudice statements to be admitted to demonstrate the . .
CitedHall and Another v Pertemps Group Ltd and Another ChD 21-Nov-2005
It was alleged that in the course of mediation one party had made a threat against the other. The current application related to a report of the mediation made to a third party, and the court was asked to take account of that threat in assessing . .
CitedBuckinghamshire County Council v Moran CA 13-Feb-1989
The parties’ respective properties were separated by a fence or hedge and the true owner had no access to the disputed land. In 1967 the Defendants’ predecessors in title began to maintain the land by mowing the grass and trimming the hedges and . .
CitedOfulue and Another v Bossert CA 29-Jan-2008
The claimants appealed an order finding that the defendant had acquired their land by adverse possession. They said that the defendant had asserted in defence to possession proceedings that they were tenants, and that this contradicted an intent to . .
CitedBrown v Rice and Another ChD 14-Mar-2007
The parties, the bankrupt and her trustee, had engaged in a mediation which failed at first, but applicant said an agreement was concluded on the day following. The defendants denied this, and the court as asked to determine whether a settlement had . .
CitedOfulue and Another v Bossert HL 11-Mar-2009
The parties disputed ownership of land, one claiming adverse possession. In the course of negotations, the possessor made a without prejudice offer to purchase the paper owner’s title. The paper owner claimed that this was an acknowledgement under . .
CitedBrunel University and Another v Webster and Vaseghi CA 22-May-2007
The parties had been involved in long standing disputes about the procedures in the respondents complaints of race discrimination. The claims had been dismissed, but the Vice-Chancellor then wrote publicly of unfounded unwarranted and excessive . .
CitedBest Buy Co Inc and Another v Worldwide Sales Corp. Espana Sl ChD 8-Jul-2010
The claimant accused the defendant of making threats in connection with trade mark applications. The claimants operated under US trade marks associated with ‘Best Buy’ and sought similar marks in Europe. The defendant company traded under a similar . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Evidence, Litigation Practice, Construction

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.182472

East Ham Corporation v Bernard Sunley and Sons Ltd: HL 1965

In cases in which the plaintiff is seeking damages for the defective performance of a building contract, which is a contract for labour and materials, the normal measure of his damages is the cost of carrying out remedial work, or re-instatement. Reasonableness is a part of the primary assessment of damages as well as of mitigation of damage.
Lord Cohen said: ‘the learned editors of Hudson’s Building and Engineering Contracts, 8th ed. (1959) say at p.319 that there are in fact three possible bases of assessing damages, namely, (a) the cost of reinstatement; (b) the difference in cost to the builder of the actual work done and work specified; or (c) the diminution in value of the work due to the breach of contract. They go on: ‘There is no doubt that wherever it is reasonable for the employer to insist upon reinstatement the courts will treat the cost of reinstatement as the measure of damage.’ In the present case it could not be disputed that it was reasonable for the appellants to insist upon reinstatement and in these circumstances it necessarily follows that on the question of damage the trial judge arrived at the right conclusion.’
Lord Upjohn stated that in a case of defective building work reinstatement was the normal measure of damages.

Lord Upjohn, Lord Guest, Lord Cohen and Lord Pearson
[1966] 1 AC 406, [1965] 3 All ER 619
England and Wales
Cited by:
ConsideredRuxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth HL 29-Jun-1995
Damages on Construction not as Agreed
The appellant had contracted to build a swimming pool for the respondent, but, after agreeing to alter the specification to construct it to a certain depth, in fact built it to the original lesser depth, Damages had been awarded to the house owner . .
CitedAlfred Mcalpine Construction Limited v Panatown Limited HL 17-Feb-2000
A main contractor who was building not on his own land, would only be free to claim damages from a sub-contractor for defects in the building where the actual owner of the land would not also have had a remedy. Here, the land owner was able to sue . .
CitedDarlington Borough Council v Wiltshier Northern Ltd and Others CA 29-Jun-1994
The council owned land on which it wanted to build a recreational centre. Construction contracts were entered into not by the council but by a finance company, the building contractors being the respondents Wiltshier Northern Ltd. The finance . .
CitedPegler Ltd v Wang (UK) Ltd TCC 25-Feb-2000
Standard Conract – Wide Exclusions, Apply 1977 Act
The claimant had acquired a computer system from the defendant, which had failed. It was admitted that the contract had been broken, and the court set out to decide the issue of damages.
Held: Even though Wang had been ready to amend one or . .
CitedDarlington Borough Council v Wiltshier Northern Ltd CA 28-Jun-1994
The plaintiff council complained of the work done for it by the defendant builder.
Held: Steyn LJ said: ‘in the case of a building contract, the prima facie rule is cost of cure, i.e., the cost of remedying the defect: East Ham Corporation v. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Construction

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.192627

RJT Consulting Engineers Ltd v DM Engineering (NI) Ltd: CA 8 Mar 2002

The court considered what would amount to a contract in writing under the 1996 Act. Ward LJ said: ‘Section 107(2) gives three categories where the agreement is to be treated in writing. The first is where the agreement, whether or not it is signed by the parties, is made in writing. That must mean where the agreement is contained in a written document which stands as a record of the agreement and all that was contained in the agreement. The second category, an exchange of communications in writing, likewise is capable of containing all that needs to be known about the agreement. One is therefore led to believe by what used to be known as the eiusdem generis rule that the third category will be to the same effect namely that the evidence in writing is evidence of the whole agreement.
Sub-section (3) is consistent with that view. Where the parties agree by reference to terms which are in writing, the legislature is envisaging that all of the material terms are in writing and that the oral agreement refers to that written record.
Sub-section (4) allows an agreement to be evidenced in writing if it (the agreement) is recorded by one of the parties or by a third party with the authority of the parties to the agreement. What is there contemplated is, thus, a record (which by sub-section (6) can be in writing or a record by any means) of everything which has been said. Again it is a record of the whole agreement.’ and ‘On the point of construction of section 107, what has to be evidenced in writing is, literally, the agreement, which means all of it, not part of it. A record of the agreement also suggests a complete agreement, not a partial one. . . It must be remembered that by virtue of section 107(1) the need for an agreement in writing is the precondition for the application of the other provisions of Part II of the Act, not just the jurisdictional threshold for a reference to adjudication. I say ‘unfortunately’ because, like Auld L.J. whose judgment I have now read in draft, I would regard it as a pity if too much ‘jurisdictional wrangling’ were to limit the opportunities for expeditious adjudication having an interim effect only. No doubt adjudicators will be robust in excluding the trivial from the ambit of the agreement and the matter must be entrusted to their common sense. ‘

Lords Justice Auld, Ward and Robert Walker
Gazette 11-Apr-2002, [2002] CILL 1841, (2002) 18 Const LJ 425, [2002] TCLR 21, 83 Con LR 99, [2002] EWCA Civ 270, [2002] CLC 905, [2002] 1 WLR 2344, [2002] BLR 217
Bailii
Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 107
England and Wales
Cited by:
FollowedTrustees of the Stratfield SAYE Estate v AHL Construction Limited TCC 6-Dec-2004
The court was asked what was meant by a contract in writing under section 10. Jackson J applied RJT saying: ‘The principle of law which I derive from the majority judgments in RJT is this: an agreement is only evidenced in writing for the purposes . .
CitedAllen Wilson Joinery Ltd v Privetgrange Construction Ltd TCC 17-Nov-2008
The claimant sought summary judgment to enforce an arbitration award in a construction dispute. The defendants argued that the contract was not sufficiently evidenced in writing to accord with the 1996 Act. The claimants replied that any oral . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Contract, Arbitration

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.170039

Swain v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 20 May 2013

FTTTx VAT – DIY residential conversion – conversion of barn to house – planning permission limiting occupation of property to manager or proprietor of holiday accommodation business to be operated from adjacent barns (for which planning permission also obtained) – whether conversion work was carried out in course or furtherance of a business – no – whether the separate use, or disposal of the property was prohibited by the planning permission for the purposes of Note (2)(c) to Group 5, Schedule 8 VAT Act 1994 – yes – appeal dismissed

[2013] UKFTT 316 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

VAT, Construction

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.513464

EL Flood and Sons Partnership v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 21 Feb 2012

FTTTx Value Added Tax – whether work in replacing a damaged plasterboard ceiling with a lath and plaster ceiling in a Grade II listed building, the change of fabric resulting from insistence by the planning authority, qualified as an alteration to the fabric of a listed building, and thus to be zero-rated – Appeal allowed

Nowlan TJ
[2012] UKFTT 147 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

VAT, Construction

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.451959

Anns and Others v Merton London Borough Council: HL 12 May 1977

The plaintiff bought her apartment, but discovered later that the foundations were defective. The local authority had supervised the compliance with Building Regulations whilst it was being built, but had failed to spot the fault. The authority appealed a finding that it was liable, arguing that the claims were time barred and that it had owed no duty beyond its statutory duty.
Held: As a public body, the defendant’s powers and duties were defined in public not private law. Any distinction between the powers and duties of a local authority fell to be considered in that context. The authority should at least have considered whether to inspect the foundations, and if it did inspect, to do so with care. The authority could not protect itself entirely, simply by failing to carry out any inspection at all. A duty of care might exist at common law, and whether it did so did not depend upon whether the statute imposed a duty or a power to inspect. The cause of action arose at the time when the condition of the building suggested some fault, and time did not begin to run until this happened. The action was not statute barred.
Lord Wilberforce attempted to lay down an approach which could be applied in all situations in order to determine the existence of a duty of care. That approach has two stages: first, it was necessary to decide whether there was a prima facie duty of care, based on the foreseeability of harm, and secondly, in order to place limits on the breadth of the first stage, it was necessary to consider whether there were reasons of public policy for excluding or restricting any such prima facie duty.

Lord Wilberforce, Lord Diplock, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, Lord Salmon and Lord Russell of Killowen
[1978] AC 728, [1977] CLY 2030, [1977] 2 All ER 492, [1977] UKHL 4
lip, Bailii
Public Health Act 1936
England and Wales
Citing:
DoubtedEast Suffolk Rivers Catchment Board v Kent HL 1941
An exceptionally high spring tide caused many breaches of the banks of the River Deben, and extensive flooding, including the respondent’s farm. By section 6 of the 1930 Act, the appellants had a statutory power to maintain the flood defences, but . .
CitedDorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office HL 6-May-1970
A yacht was damaged by boys who had escaped from the supervision of prison officers in a nearby Borstal institution. The boat owners sued the Home Office alleging negligence by the prison officers.
Held: Any duty of a borstal officer to use . .
CitedDutton v Bognor Regis Urban District Council CA 1972
The court considered the liability in negligence of a Council whose inspector had approved a building which later proved defective.
Held: The Council had control of the work and with such control came a responsibility to take care in . .
CitedHedley Byrne and Co Ltd v Heller and Partners Ltd HL 28-May-1963
Banker’s Liability for Negligent Reference
The appellants were advertising agents. They were liable themselves for advertising space taken for a client, and had sought a financial reference from the defendant bankers to the client. The reference was negligent, but the bankers denied any . .

Cited by:
ConsideredStovin v Wise (Norfolk City Council, 3rd party) CA 16-Feb-1994
A road user was injured on a corner which was known to the highway authority to be dangerous. The authority had sought to make arrangements with the owner of land adjoining the highway to remove a bank which obstructed the view.
Held: The . .
OverruledMurphy v Brentwood District Council HL 26-Jul-1990
Anns v Merton Overruled
The claimant appellant was a house owner. He had bought the house from its builders. Those builders had employed civil engineers to design the foundations. That design was negligent. They had submitted the plans to the defendant Council for approval . .
CitedBellefield Computer Services Limited, Unigate Properties Limited; Unigate Dairies Limited; Unigate (Uk) Limited; Unigate Dairies (Western) Limited v E Turner and Sons Limited Admn 28-Jan-2000
The Defendant builders constructed a steel building to be used as, inter alia. a dairy. The original owners sold it to the appellants. A fire spread from the storage area to the rest of the dairy and caused much damage. The Builders, had they . .
CitedHill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire HL 28-Apr-1987
No General ty of Care Owed by Police
The mother of a victim of the Yorkshire Ripper claimed in negligence against the police alleging that they had failed to satisfy their duty to exercise all reasonable care and skill to apprehend the perpetrator of the murders and to protect members . .
CitedHughes v National Union of Mineworkers QBD 1991
The court struck out as disclosing no cause of action a claim by a police officer who was injured while policing the miners’ strike and who alleged that the police officer in charge had deployed his men negligently.
Held: The officer in charge . .
CitedWalker v Northumberland County Council QBD 16-Nov-1994
The plaintiff was a manager within the social services department. He suffered a mental breakdown in 1986, and had four months off work. His employers had refused to provide the increased support he requested. He had returned to work, but again, did . .
AppliedTate and Lyle Industries Ltd v Greater London Council HL 24-Mar-1983
The plaintiff had constructed and used two jetties, and dredged a channel down to the Thames for their use. The Council constructed two terminals nearby, the result of which was to cause a build up of silt blocking the channel.
Held: The . .
FollowedJunior Books v Veitchi Co Ltd HL 15-Jul-1982
The defendant was a specialist sub-contractor brought in to lay a floor. In laying the composition floor the defenders used too wet a mixture and applied too thin a top coat and failed to cure the material properly. As a result cracks began to . .
CitedYianni v Edwin Evans and Sons ChD 1981
The respondent valuers reported to a building society that a property would be a sufficient security. The purchaser relied on that report to purchase the property, ignoring the advice in the lender’s form to obtain a full survey. The property was . .
CitedPeabody Donation Fund v Sir Lindsay Parkinson and Co Ltd HL 18-Oct-1983
Architects proposed a system of flexible drains for a site, but the contractors persuaded them to accept rigid drains which once laid proved inadequate at considerable cost. The local authority had permitted the departure from the plans.
Held: . .
DistinguishedCurran v Northern Ireland Co-Ownership Housing Association HL 1987
The claimant bought a property. The previous owner had had it refurbished with a grant, but it now appeared that that work had been defective. He sought damages in negligence from the defendant grant paying authority for having paid out the full . .
CitedA and Another v Essex County Council CA 17-Dec-2003
The claimant sought damages. The respondent had acted as an adoption agency but had failed to disclose all relevant information about the child.
Held: Any such duty extended only during the period where the child was with the prospective . .
CitedBinod Sutradhar v Natural Environment Research Council CA 20-Feb-2004
The defendant council had carried out research into a water supply in India in the 1980s. The claimant drank the water, and claimed damages for having consumed arsenic in it.
Held: There is a close link between the tests in law for proximity . .
CitedGorringe v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council HL 1-Apr-2004
Statutory Duty Not Extended by Common Law
The claimant sought damages after a road accident. The driver came over the crest of a hill and hit a bus. The road was not marked with any warning as to the need to slow down.
Held: The claim failed. The duty could not be extended to include . .
CitedRegina v Lam and Others (T/a ‘Namesakes of Torbay’) and Borough of Torbay CA 30-Jul-1997
The claimant sought damages after the planning authority allowed the first defendant to conduct a manufacturing business in the course of which spraying activities took place which caused them personal injuries and loss of business.
Held: The . .
CitedHM Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank Plc HL 21-Jun-2006
The claimant had served an asset freezing order on the bank in respect of one of its customers. The bank paid out on a cheque inadvertently as to the order. The Commissioners claimed against the bank in negligence. The bank denied any duty of care. . .
CitedCBS Songs Ltd v Amstrad Consumer Electronics Plc HL 12-May-1988
The plaintiffs as representatives sought to restrain Amstrad selling equipment with two cassette decks without taking precautions which would reasonably ensure that their copyrights would not be infringed by its users.
Held: Amstrad could only . .
AppliedYuen Kun-Yeu v Attorney-General of Hong Kong PC 1987
(Hong Kong) The claimant deposited money with a licensed deposit taker, regulated by the Commissioner. He lost his money when the deposit taker went into insolvent liquidation. He said the regulator was responsible when it should have known of the . .
CitedMichael and Others v The Chief Constable of South Wales Police and Another SC 28-Jan-2015
The claimants asserted negligence in the defendant in failing to provide an adequate response to an emergency call, leading, they said to the death of their daughter at the hands of her violent partner. They claimed also under the 1998 Act. The . .
CitedRobinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police SC 8-Feb-2018
Limits to Police Exemption from Liability
The claimant, an elderly lady was bowled over and injured when police were chasing a suspect through the streets. As they arrested him they fell over on top of her. She appealed against refusal of her claim in negligence.
Held: Her appeal . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Negligence, Limitation, Local Government

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.174314

Aspect 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.

Akenhead J
[2013] EWHC 1322 (TCC), [2013] WLR(D) 211
Bailii, WLRD
Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 108(5), Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998
Cited by:
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. . .
At First InstanceAspect 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration, Construction

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.510042

Hoskins v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 20 Apr 2012

Construction Industry Scheme – Appellant paid sub-contractor gross -appellant liable for amount that ought to have been deducted – appeal against HMRC’s refusal to make direction relieving appellant under Regulation 9 of the Income Tax (Construction Industry Scheme) Regulations 2005 (‘CIS Regulations’) because HMRC not satisfied sub-contractor had paid tax – whether Tribunal had jurisdiction on this point – no – whether HMRC wrong to refuse relief under Regulation 9(3) of CIS Regulations (reasonable care to comply, error made in good faith, genuine belief deduction obligation did not apply) – no – appeal dismissed

[2012] UKFTT 284 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.462684

Tets Haskovo v Direktor Na Direktsia: ECJ 18 Oct 2012

ECJ Taxation – VAT – Right of deduction – Contribution in kind – Destruction of property – New buildings – Adjustment
R. Silva de Lapuerta
C-234/11, [2012] EUECJ C-234/11
Bailii
European
Citing:
OpinionTets Haskovo v Direktor Na Direktsia ECJ 14-Jun-2012
ECJ (Opinion) Tax legislation – Value added tax – Articles 185 and 187 of Directive 2006/112/EC – Adjustment of deductions in connection with the demolition of buildings . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 October 2021; Ref: scu.503553