Stiell Ltd v Riema Control Systems Ltd: IHCS 28 Jun 2000

Contractors had been called upon to carry out work beyond that originally requested, and sought payment, and had arrested a payment in the hands of a third party. Before raising the action they had referred the matter to adjudication under the Act.
Held: The fact of the reference did not change the fact of the claim, and the effect of the arbitrator’s decision in rejecting the claim was not like that of a certifying engineer or architect.

Citations:

Times 28-Jun-2000

Statutes:

Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Arbitration, Construction, Scotland

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89556

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.

Judges:

Lord Kerr, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson

Citations:

[2015] UKPC 39

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction, Administrative, Contract

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.553063

Channel 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 particularly true in the field of damages. The majority of the Court in Ruxley Electronics did not hold that a plaintiff can recover in damages the cost of remedial measures which are unreasonable. They held that, in the circumstances of that case it was not unreasonable for the plaintiff to spend the substantial sum necessary to have what he had contracted for. The test of what was reasonable had to have regard to his personal preference, as expressed in the depth of water that he had contractually required. This reasoning can be applied to a requirement which is incorporated in a contract as an end in itself, reflecting a personal preference of the contracting party. It does not apply where the contractual requirement is not an end in itself, but is inserted into a commercial contract because it has financial implications. If, in such a case, the contractual requirement is not met, the costs of remedial measures will not normally be recoverable as damages if they are disproportionate to the financial consequences of the breach. If that is the case it will not be reasonable to incur those costs. The damages recoverable will be those necessary to compensate for the financial consequences of the breach.’

Judges:

Phillips J

Citations:

Times 05-Apr-1994, [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 161

Citing:

CitedRuxley 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 . .

Cited by:

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.

Arbitration, Damages, Construction

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78974

Jacob 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 the allowance is not the cost of replacement, which would be great, but the difference in value, which would be either nominal or nothing . . It is true that in most cases the cost of replacement is the measure . . The owner is entitled to the money which will permit him to complete, unless the cost of completion is grossly and unfairly out of proportion to the good to be obtained. When that is true, the measure is the difference in value. Specifications call, let us say, for a foundation built of granite quarried in Vermont. On the completion of the building, the owner learns that through the blunder of a subcontractor part of the foundation has been built of granite of the same quality quarried in New Hampshire. The measure of allowance is not the cost of reconstruction. ‘There may be omissions of that which could not afterwards be supplied exactly as called for by the contract without taking down the building to its foundations, and at the same time the omission may not affect the value of the building for use or otherwise, except so slightly as to be hardly appreciable.’

Judges:

Cardoza J

Citations:

(1921) 230 NY 239

Cited by:

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, International

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.526102

Allied London and Scottish Properties Plc v Riverbrae Construction Ltd: OHCS 12 Nov 1999

An adjudicator who acts under the Scheme upon the written submission of the parties and without any oral hearing was not able to consider making an order for payment of the award by installments where neither party had raised that issue in their written submissions. He was not required by the scheme to consider such a procedure.

Citations:

Times 12-Nov-1999

Statutes:

Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 108

Construction, Scotland

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.77760

Lloyds Bank plc v Guardian Assurance plc: CA 1986

The statutory control over building works provided under s.60 is capable of operating quite separately from the private law tort of nuisance.

Judges:

Sir John Arnold P and Nourse LJ

Citations:

[1986] 35 BLR 34

Statutes:

Control of Pollution Act 1974 60

Cited by:

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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Construction

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.266303

Fillite (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 contract as such. Slade LJ said that the phrase ‘under a contract’ was not wide enough to include disputes which did not concern obligations created by or incorporated in the contract. Nourse LJ agreed.
Nourse LJ: ‘The preposition ‘under’ presupposes that the noun which it governs already has some existence. It operates in time as well as in space. I think that it means ‘as a result of’ and with reference to’. The disputes as to express or implied terms in the composite Peterborough contract arise both as a result of and with reference to that contract and are therefore within clause 14 of the heads of agreement. The disputes as to negligent misstatement, misrepresentation under the misrepresentation Act 1967 and collateral warranty or contract, while they may in a loose sense be said to arise with reference to the contract, cannot be said to arise as a result of it. They all relate to matters which either preceded the contract or were at best contemporaneous with it. Those disputes are therefore outside clause 14 and I agree with Slade LJ that the material words are not wide enough to include disputes which do not concern obligations created by or incorporated in the contract.’
Slade LJ held the phrase ‘disputes arising under a contract’ to be not wide enough to include disputes which do not concern obligations created by or incorporated in that contract.

Judges:

Nourse LJ, Slade LJ

Citations:

(1989) CLR 66, (1989) 26 Const LR 66, (1989) 45 BLR 27

Cited by:

CitedFiona Trust and Holding Corp and others v Privalov and others ComC 20-Oct-2006
The parties disputed whether their claim should be arbitrated.
Held: A claim as to whether the contract itself had been made was not one which could be arbitrated by provisions in that contract. It does not arise ‘under’ the contract. The . .
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.
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 . .
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.

Construction, Arbitration

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.245557

Balfour Beatty Building Ltd v Chestermount Properties Ltd: 1993

It was argued that the party seeking a referral to arbitration need only rely on the existence of relevant events for its entitlement to an extension of time and has no regard for any delay for which it may be culpable and which may impact at the same time as the relevant event.
Held: A limitation to be placed on the approach suggsted was that the net delay of the event should be added to the time for completion, rather than the gross delay including prior culpable delay.

Judges:

Colman J

Citations:

(1993) 62 BLR 12

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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 . .
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. . .
QuestionedHenry Boot Construction v Malmaison Hotel (Manchester) Ltd TCC 1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Arbitration

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.235379

John Holland Construction and Engineering Pty Ltd v Kvaerner R J Brown Pty Ltd: 1996

(Supreme Court of Victoria) The defendant applied to strike out substantial parts of a statement of claim on grounds including that the defendant faced allegations that by reason of breaches of contract the plaintiff had suffered loss of damage, particulars of which were given in a schedule A in which the loss and damage was calculated in terms of the difference between the tender estimate for the part in question and its actual cost. The defendant attacked the pleading on the grounds that such an allegation was embarrassing since it did not establish a causal link between the breach and the damage alleged.
Held: The court considered the treatment of global claims, that is claims where the claimant does not seek to attribute any specific loss to a specific breach of contract, but is content to allege a composite loss as a result of all the breaches alleged: ‘Where the loss is caused by a breach of contract, causation for the purposes of a claim for damages must be determined by the application of common sense to the logical principles of causation’ and ‘it is possible to say that a given loss was in law caused by a particular act or omission notwithstanding that other acts or omissions played a part in its occurrence. It is sufficient that the breach be a material cause… This last matter may be of particular importance in a case like the present where a number of potential causal factors may be present.’ The court noted that a global claim had been held to be permissible in the case where it was impracticable to disentangle that part of the loss which is attributable to each head of claim. The particular claim under consideration was a total cost claim: ‘The logic of such a claim is this: the contractor might reasonably have expected to perform the work for a particular sum, usually the contract price; the proprietor committed breaches of contract; the actual reasonable cost of the work was a sum greater than the expected cost.
The logical consequence implicit in this is that the proprietor’s breaches caused that extra cost or cost overrun. This implication is valid only so long as, and to the extent that, the three propositions are proved and a further unstated one is accepted: the proprietor’s breaches represent the only causally significant factor responsible for the difference between the expected cost and the actual cost. … The unstated assumption underlying the inference may be further analysed. What is involved here is two things: first, the breaches of contract caused some extra cost; secondly, the contractor’s cost overrun is this extra cost. … It is the second aspect of the unstated assumption … which is likely to cause the more obvious problem because it involves an allegation that the breaches of contract were the material cause of all of the contractor’s cost overrun. This involves an assertion that, given that the breaches of contract caused some extra cost, they must have caused the whole of the extra cost because no other relevant cause was responsible for any part of it.’

Judges:

Byrne J

Citations:

[1996] 82 BLR 83

Jurisdiction:

Australia

Cited by:

CitedJohn Doyle Construction Limited v Laing Management (Scotland) Limited SCS 18-Apr-2002
The pursuer made a loss and expense claim in global form in a construction dispute. He was unable to prove that all of his losses stemmed from the default.
Held: A global claim requires proof that each and every element of the loss claimed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.182082

Trafalgar House Construction (Regions) Ltd v General Surety and Guarantee Co Ltd: HL 4 Jul 1995

The main contractors for the construction of a new leisure complex for a borough council entered into a subcontract for the groundworks. The subcontractor and the appellants provided a Bond for 10 percent of the value of the subcontract on condition that ‘if the subcontractors shall duly perform and observe’ all the terms of the contract or ‘if on default by the subcontractor the surety shall satisfy and discharge the damages sustained by the main contractor thereby’ up to the amount of the Bond then the obligation would be null and void but otherwise remain in full force.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The subcontractor was entitled to a set off against a claim on the bond given to the head contractor. A sub-contractor’s bond was a guarantee and he was entitled to the rights of a guarantor. The House viewed with scepticism a submission that it was an implied term of a bond that any overpayment would be repaid.
Bonds in similar form had always been treated as guarantee; the bond referred to the appellants as ‘the surety’; the contract appeared in substance to be one to answer for the default of another; and it contained express provisions negating release of the surety upon a variation of the contract or forbearance as to time.
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle said: ‘There is no doubt that in a contract of guarantee parties may, if so minded, exclude any one or more of the normal incidents of suretyship. However, if they choose to do so clear and unambiguous language must be used to displace the normal legal consequences of the contract . .’

Judges:

Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle

Citations:

Gazette 19-Jul-1995, Times 04-Jul-1995, [1995] 3 All ER 737, [1996] 1 AC 199

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromTrafalgar House Construction (Regions) Ltd v General Surety and Guarantee Co Ltd CA 1994
Beldam LJ said: ‘It seems to me implicit that the demand made by the sub-contractor should state the amount of the damages sustained by the default. But it does not follow that, because the main contractor must state the amount of the damages, the . .

Cited by:

CitedGold Coast Ltd v Caja De Ahorros Del Mediterraneo and others CA 6-Dec-2001
The banks appealed findings as to their liability to pay out under on-demand guarantees they had given in respect of stage payments for the construction of a ship. It was claimed that the delivery times had not been met, and the builder was in . .
CitedVan Der Merwe and Another v IIG Capital Llc ChD 13-Nov-2007
The parties had entered into a debt factoring agreement, under which repayment was sought of some $30m, and the claimants were said to have guaranteed the loan by the factor to their company. The court was asked whether the guarantors had the same . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Construction

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.89972

Bovis Construction (Scotland) Ltd v Whatlings Construction Ltd: HL 19 Oct 1995

The managing contractors sought damages from a sub-contractor. The contract was on a printed form and in letters. A letter limited time related damages to pounds 100,000. The main contractors sought a much larger sum.
Held: A clause seeking to limit liability must be clear in what it restricts, and is to be read strictly. The sub-contractors had wholly failed to show that the clause could cover their repudiatory breach leading to a termination of the contract. Time was not relevant for this clause after the breach. Appeal dismissed.

Citations:

Gazette 24-Jan-1996, Times 19-Oct-1995, [1995] CLY 5569, 1995 SLT 1339

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedAilsa Craig Fishing Co Ltd v Malvern Fishing Co Ltd HL 26-Nov-1981
Even though a shipowner who had carried cargo on deck was not entitled to rely on the exceptions to liability in his contract, a limitation clause was different and should not be construed by reference to the specially exacting standards applicable . .
Appeal fromBovis Construction (Scotland) Ltd v Whatlings Construction Ltd OHCS 1994
Correspondence preceding a contract could be looked at to determine the circumstances in which a provision in the contract was intended to apply.
Lord President Hope said: ‘In my opinion the issue which has arisen between the parties in this . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Construction, Scotland

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.78513

Oswald v Countrywide Surveyors Ltd: 1996

The evidential burden of establishing betterment is on the defendant.

Citations:

(1996) 50 Con LR 1

Cited by:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Damages

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.238588

Commonwealth Construction Co Ltd v Imperial Oil: 1977

(Supreme Court of Canada) de Grandpre J said: ‘On any construction site, and especially when the building being erected is a complex chemical plant, there is ever present the possibility of damage by one tradesman to the property of another and to the construction as a whole. Should this possibility become reality, the question of negligence in the absence of complete property coverage would have to be debated in Court. By recognising in all tradesmen an insurable interest based on that very real possibility, which itself has its source in the contractual arrangements opening the doors of the job site to the tradesmen, the Courts would apply to the construction field the principle expressed so long ago in the area of bailment. Thus all the parties whose joint efforts have one common goal, eg the completion of the construction, would be spared the necessity of fighting between themselves should an accident occur involving the possible responsibility of one of them.’

Judges:

de Grandpre J

Citations:

(1977) 69 DLR (3d) 558

Cited by:

CitedMark Rowlands v Berni Inns Ltd CA 1985
The plaintiff owned the freehold and had let the basement to the defendant. The plaintiff insured the building. The defendant covenanted to pay to the plaintiff an insurance rent equal to the proportionate cost of insuring the part of the building . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Insurance, Construction

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.236418

Statement (Technology and Construction Court: Arrangements): TCC 7 Jun 2005

In view of the growing importance and volume of Technology and Construction Court Business, the court provided a detailed statement of interim amendments to the arrangements pending a fuller review of needs, including providing additional judicial resources and for allocation and management of cases.

Judges:

Lord Woolf LCJ

Citations:

Times 14-Jun-2005

Litigation Practice, Construction, Intellectual Property

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.226216

Barnes and Elliot Ltd v Taylor Woodrow Holdings Ltd: 2004

Whether a minor failure of an arbitrator was sufficient to vitiate his decision.

Citations:

[2004] BLR 111

Cited by:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Arbitration

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.225459

Jones v Stroud District Council: CA 1986

The plaintiffs were unable to prove that they had paid for repair carried out to their building and rendered necessary by the defendants’ negligence.
Held: After referring to the general principle that a plaintiff who seeks to recover damages must prove that he has suffered loss: ‘but if property belonging to him has been damaged to an extent which is proved and the court is satisfied that the property has been or will be repaired I do not consider that the court is further concerned with the question whether the owner has had to pay for repairs out of his own pocket or whether the funds have come from some other source.’

Judges:

Neill LJ

Citations:

[1986] 1 WLR 1141

Cited by:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Damages

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.218909

British Steel Corporation v Cleveland Bridge and Engineering Co Ltd: 1983

An ‘if contract’ is where one party makes an offer capable of acceptance on the basis that ‘if you do this for us, we will do that for you’. Often used in the construction industry.
Goff J said: ‘the question whether . . any contract has come into existence must depend on a true construction of the relevant communications which have passed between the parties and the effect (if any) of their actions pursuant to those communications. There can be no hard and fast answer to the question whether a letter of intent will give rise to a binding agreement; everything must depend on the circumstances of the particular case. In most cases where work is done pursuant to a request contained in a letter of intent, it will not matter whether a contract did or did not come into existence; because if the party who has acted on the request is simply claiming payment, his claim will usually be based upon a quantum meruit, and it will make no difference whether that claim is contractual or quasi-contractual. Of course, a quantum meruit claim (like the old actions for money had and received and for money paid) straddles the boundaries of what we now call contract and restitution; so the mere framing of a claim as a quantum meruit claim, or a claim for a reasonable sum, does not assist in classifying the claim as contractual or quasi-contractual. . . As a matter of analysis the contract (if any) which may come into existence following a letter of intent may take one of two forms: either there may be an ordinary executory contract, under which each party assumes reciprocal obligations to the other; or there may be what is sometimes called an ‘if’ contract, ie a contract under which A requests B to carry out a certain performance and promises B that, if he does so, he will receive a certain performance in return, usual remuneration for his performance. The latter transaction is really no more than a standing offer which, if acted upon before it lapses or is lawfully withdrawn, will result in a binding contract. The former type of contract was held to exist by Judge Fay QC in Turriff Construction Ltd. v. Regalia Knitting Mills Ltd (1971) 9 BLR 20; and it is the type of contract for which [Counsel for CBE] contended in the present case. Of course, as I have already said, everything must depend on the facts of the particular case; but certainly, on the facts of the present case – and, as I imagine, on the facts of most cases – this must be a very difficult submission to maintain.’
If there is no contract there can be no question of a party to a transaction being in breach of an obligation of the type which can only arise under a contract. ‘In my judgment, the true analysis of the situation is this. Both parties confidently expected a formal contract to eventuate. In these circumstances, to expedite performance under that anticipated contract, one requested the other to commence the contract work, and the other complied with that request. If thereafter – as anticipated – a contract was entered into, the work done as requested will be treated as having been performed under that contract; if, contrary to their expectation, no contract was entered into, then the performance of the work is not referable to any contract of which the terms can be ascertained, and the law simply imposes an obligation on the party who made the request to pay a reasonable sum for such work as has been done pursuant to that request, such an obligation sounding in quasi-contract or, as we now say, in restitution.’

Judges:

Robert Goff J

Citations:

[1984] 1 All ER 504, (1983) BLR 94, [1984] 1 WLR 504

Cited by:

CitedMowlem Plc (T/A Mowlem Marine) v Stena Line Ports Ltd TCC 6-Oct-2004
Construction of ‘if contract’ for work at Holyhead ferry terminal. . .
CitedBecerra v Close Brothers ComC 25-Jun-1999
ComC Claim for fee for introducing successful bidder at a controlled auction – no express contract – no implied contract based on City practice – claim for quantum meruit failed because no express or implied . .
CitedYeoman’s Row Management Ltd and Another v Cobbe HL 30-Jul-2008
The parties agreed in principle for the sale of land with potential development value. Considerable sums were spent, and permission achieved, but the owner then sought to renegotiate the deal.
Held: The appeal succeeded in part. The finding . .
CitedCountrywide Communications Limited v ICL Pathway Ltd 1996
The court considered the authorities bearing on the question of whether or not a claim under a quantum meruit can successfully be made for work done in anticipation of a contract which does not materialise. Strauss J concluded: ‘I have found it . .
MentionedMSM Consulting Ltd v United Republic of Tanzania QBD 30-Jan-2009
The claimants sought commission or a quantum meruit for the part they had taken in finding a suitable site for the defendant’s High Commission in London.
Held: The works undertaken were consistent with the claimant seeking work from the . .
CitedRTS Flexible Systems Ltd v Molkerei Alois Muller Gmbh and Company Kg (UK Production) SC 10-Mar-2010
The parties had reached agreement in outline and sought to have the contract formalised, but went ahead anyway. They now disputed whether an agreement had been created and as to its terms if so.
Held: It was unrealistic to suggest that no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Contract

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.216348

Zielinski Baker and Partners Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: 2001

‘Note (1)(a) of Group 6 provides that an essential feature of a protected building is that it is a listed building ‘within the meaning of’ the 1990 Act. A listed building ‘within the meaning of’ the 1990 Act is a building which falls within the extended definition in section 1(5) of the 1990 Act.’

Judges:

Etherton J

Citations:

[2001] STC 585

Statutes:

Value Added Tax Act 1994 Sch 8 Grp 6, Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 1(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromZielinski Baker and Partners Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 12-May-2002
Taxpayers sought exemption from VAT for works to a building. The commissioners claimed that the main building was not a dwelling, and that therefore the outbuilding would not be exempt.
Held: The main building was listed, and the outbuilding . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Construction

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.193895

Scottish Special Housing Association v Wimpey Construction UK Ltd: HL 1986

The court acknowledged the practice in construction contracts making an express link between the liability imposed on the contractor, the specific aspect of such liability which iwas excluded and the existence of insurance (intended to benefit both contractor and employer) in respect of that excluded liability.

Citations:

[1986] 1 WLR 995, [1986] 2 All ER 957

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedScottish and Newcastle plc v GD Construction (St Albans) Ltd CA 22-Jan-2003
The employer and main contractor had contracted under the JCT conditions. The employer had been obliged to insure the property for fire in their joint names, but had not done so. After a fire caused by the negligence of a sub-contractor, he sued. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.181188

Plant Construction Plc v Clive Adams Associates and Another: CA 1 Mar 2000

A sub-contractor obliged under contract to carry out works in a certain way and to a specification set down by the main contractor, remained under a duty to warn that employer of any obvious danger. He was subject to the normal standards of behaving with the skill and care of an ordinarily competent contractor whatever was said in the contract about obeying instructions.

Citations:

Times 01-Mar-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health and Safety, Construction

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.84758

Harbour and General Works Ltd v The Environment Agency: CA 22 Oct 1999

Where parties operated under a contract which provided for arbitration provided reference was claimed within a certain time scale, the failure of one party to apply for a reference in time because he had failed to read that part of the contract was not a sufficient reason to allow an extension of time. This applied even though the term was incorporated by reference, and that such applications need not be construed strictly.

Citations:

Times 22-Oct-1999, Gazette 10-Nov-1999, [1999] BLR 409

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedJ T Mackley and Company Ltd v Gosport Marina Ltd TCC 3-Jul-2002
The claimant challenged the validity of a notice to refer a case to arbitration. The respondent challenged saying that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the objection, and that such issues were to be decided by the arbitrator. The claim related . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration, Contract, Construction

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81226

Henry Boot Construction Ltd v GEC Alstom Combiined Cycles Ltd: CA 11 Apr 2000

A contract in Standard Institute of Civil Engineers conditions provided that variations in materials should be costed for in line with the costings schedules. The fact that the schedules were in error did not mean that they could departed from. A second clause limiting the application to situations where this provided a reasonable effect could not apply unless the prerequisites of the subsequent clause also applied, and the alterations in materials or works were substantial.

Citations:

Times 11-Apr-2000, Gazette 28-Apr-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract, Construction

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81325

Bouygues (Uk) Ltd v Dahl-Jensen (Uk) Ltd (In Liquidation): CA 17 Aug 2000

When the decision of an adjudicator was challenged, the court should ask whether the adjudicator had either asked the right question but in the wrong way, or whether he had even answered the wrong question. The procedure was intended to provide a quick and summary disposal, but that procedure might not be appropriate in cases involving insolvency of one party and or cross claims. Any creditor who owes a debt to an insolvent company, no matter how long overdue, may set off that debt in full against his own claim in the liquidation.

Judges:

Chadwick LJ

Citations:

Times 17-Aug-2000, Gazette 14-Sep-2000, [2000] BLR 522

Statutes:

Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 108

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromBouygues UK Limited v Dahl-Jensen UK Limited TCC 17-Dec-1999
An arbitrator had made an award, the consequence of which, it was claimed, would lead to a retention being released before it was actually due. It was claimed that this part of the award was outside the adjudicator’s jurisdiction.
Held: . .

Cited by:

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 . .
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. . .
CitedMelville Dundas Ltd and others v George Wimpey UK Ltd and others HL 25-Apr-2007
The appellant sought an interim payment for works of construction undertaken for the respondents under a JCT contract. The respondents contended that, having terminated the contract on their receivership, the contract and Act meant that the interim . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Arbitration, Commercial, Insolvency

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.78510

Evans Marshall and Co Ltd v Bertola SA: CA 1973

Lord Justice Sachs considered whether damages were an adequate remedy for the refusal of an injunction, and said: ‘The standard question in relation to the grant of an injunction, Are damages an adequate remedy?’ might perhaps, in the light of the authorities of recent years, be re-written as, ‘Is it just, in all the circumstances, that a plaintiff should be confined to his remedy in damages?’.’ . . and ‘The courts have repeatedly recognised there can be claims under contracts in which, as here, it is unjust to confine a plaintiff to his damages for their breach. Great difficulty in estimating these damages is one factor that can be and has been taken into account. Another factor is the creation of certain areas of damage which cannot be taken into monetary account in a common law action for breach of contract. Loss of goodwill and trade reputation are examples. Generally, indeed, the grant of injunctions in contract cases stems from such factors’.

Judges:

Sachs, Edmund Davies and Cairns LJJ

Citations:

[1973] 1 WLR 349

Cited by:

CitedAB v CD QBD 3-Jan-2014
The parties were contracted to each other in respect of an internet based marketing system for metals and other resources. The claimant had contracted in effect to promote the system. The claimant sought an injunction to prevent termination of . .
CitedNATS (Services) Ltd v Gatwick Airport Ltd and Another TCC 2-Oct-2014
NATS had tendered unsuccessfully for a contract to provide air traffic control services at Gatrwick airport, and challenged the award. GAL denied that the Regulations applied and now sought disapplication of the automatic suspension from the award . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Construction

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.266304

George Stow and Co Ltd v Walter Lawrence Construction Ltd: 1992

A payment under the Act means a monetary payment: ‘Since such a payment is required where s 1(2) applies it follows that an individual, uninsured claimant who satisfies his liability to the victim by doing remedial work with his own hands cannot claim contribution to its value under the 1978 Act. That . . . seems to me to be inescapable.’

Judges:

Judge John Hicks QC

Citations:

(1992) 40 Con LR 127

Statutes:

Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 1(2)

Cited by:

CitedBaker and Davies Plc v Leslie Wilks Associates (A Firm) TCC 30-Jun-2005
The defendant sought a contribution or indemnity from a building contractor, who replied that a contribution was only capable of being ordered where a payment in money had been made.
Held: Work which had been done ‘in kind’ could be set off . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.230022

Lobb Partnership Limited v Aintree Racecourse Company Limited: 2000

A clause in an agreement provided that disputes might be be dealt with by arbitration but shall otherwise be referred to the English Courts.
Held: Each party had a right of election for arbitration. ‘The English courts have consistently taken the view that, provided that the contract gives a reasonably clear indication that arbitration is envisaged by both parties as a means of dispute resolution, they will treat both parties as bound to refer disputes to arbitration even though the clause is not expressed in mandatory terms.’

Judges:

Colman J

Citations:

[2000] 1 Building Law Reports 65

Cited by:

CitedNB Three Shipping Ltd. v Harebell Shipping Ltd ComC 13-Oct-2004
Under charterparty agreements, certain disputes were to be referred to arbitration. The claimant sought to pursue a dispute before the court.
Held: The lack of mutuality on the arbitration clause did not prevent its validity. The party had the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Arbitration

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.216402

Clay v AJ Crump and Sons Ltd: CA 1964

An architect, a demolition contractor and a building contractor were each held liable to an employee of building contractors for the collapse of a wall which, with the architect’s approval, demolition contractors had left standing.
Held: As far as tests for causation were concerned each case must be tested on its own facts and there was no general rule.
If an architect or engineer designs a house or a bridge so negligently that it falls down, he is liable to every one of those who are injured in the fall.

Judges:

Upjohn LJ

Citations:

[1964] 1 QB 533

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedStapley v Gypsum Mines Ltd HL 25-Jun-1953
Plaintiff to take own responsibility for damage
The question was whether the fault of the deceased’s fellow workman, they both having disobeyed their foreman’s instructions, was to be regarded as having contributed to the accident.
Held: A plaintiff must ‘share in the responsibility for the . .

Cited by:

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 . .
CitedGray v Fire Alarm Fabrication Services Ltd and others QBD 3-Mar-2006
The deceased, a maintenance engineer died after falling through a skylight at work. The court considered the respective liabilities of his employer and the landowner. . .
CitedSutradhar v Natural Environment Research Council HL 5-Jul-2006
Preliminary Report of Risk – No Duty of Care
The claimant sought damages after suffering injury after the creation of water supplies which were polluted with arsenic. He said that a report had identified the risks. The defendant said that the report was preliminary only and could not found a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence, Construction

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.194627

Erith Contractors Limited v Costain Civil Engineering Limited: 1994

The meaning and effect of clause 18(2) was considered.
Held: It was axiomatic that if the contractor requires the sub-contract dispute to be dealt with jointly with the main contract dispute with the employer in accordance with the provisions of clause 66 of the main contract, he is under an obligation to take the necessary steps to have the two disputes dealt with in accordance with clause 66.

Judges:

His Honour John Lloyd Q.C

Citations:

[1994] ADRLJ 123

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedLafarge Redlands Aggregates Limited (Formerly Redland Aggregates Limited) v Shephard Hill Civil Engineering Limited HL 27-Jul-2000
Once a main contractor chose, under the standard form contract, to have his dispute with one sub-contractor referred to arbitration as part of another dispute with a different contractor, he should complete the procedure within a reasonable time. It . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Construction

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.191138

M J Gleeson Group Plc v Wyatt of Snetterton Limited: CA 1994

The Court rejected a sub-contractor’s argument that a dispute between the main contractor and the employer within the meaning of clause 18(2) can only arise when clause 66 is invoked. The word ‘dispute’ in clause 18(2) must be given its ordinary meaning which prima facie comprehends the case where a claim has been put forward and rejected. Clause 18(2) was capable of causing serious financial difficulties for sub-contractors, but it was not for the court to rewrite the sub-contract in order to substitute its judgment of what was commercially fair between the parties.

Judges:

Steyn L.J

Citations:

[1994] 72 BLR

Statutes:

ICE Standard Form (1979)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedLafarge Redlands Aggregates Limited (Formerly Redland Aggregates Limited) v Shephard Hill Civil Engineering Limited HL 27-Jul-2000
Once a main contractor chose, under the standard form contract, to have his dispute with one sub-contractor referred to arbitration as part of another dispute with a different contractor, he should complete the procedure within a reasonable time. It . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.191139

Panamena Europea Navigacion v Frederick Leyland and Co: HL 1947

The parties had entered into an agreement providing for arbitration of any disputes. Lord Thankerton said: ‘By entering into the contract the respondents agreed that the appellant’s surveyor should discharge both these duties and therefore they cannot claim that the appellant’s surveyor must be in the position of an independent arbitrator, who has no other duty which involves acting in the interests of one of the parties.’
and ‘Dr Telfer declined to proceed with the matter unless he was provided with the information to which, on his erroneous view of the contract, he held himself entitled; in this view the Appellants concurred, and this position was maintained up to and after the issue of the writ. This means an illegitimate condition precedent to any consideration of the granting of a certificate was insisted on by Dr. Telfer and by the Appellants. It is almost unnecessary to cite authority to establish that such conduct on the Appellants’ part absolved the Respondents from the necessity of obtaining such a certificate, and that the Respondents are entitled to recover the amount claimed in the action.’
and ‘The view of the function of the appellant surveyor under clause 7 of the contract which I have already expressed, makes it clear beyond dispute that the Respondents have done everything which was necessary for them to do in order to require Dr. Telfer to proceed to consider the granting of a certificate under clause 7, but that Dr. Telfer declined to proceed with the matter unless he was provided with the information to which, on his erroneous view of the contract, he held himself entitled; in this view the Appellants concurred, and this position was maintained up to and after the issue of the writ. This means an illegitimate condition precedent to any consideration of the granting of a certificate was insisted on by Dr. Telfer and by the Appellants. It is almost unnecessary to cite authority to establish that such conduct on the Appellants’ part absolved the Respondents from the necessity of obtaining such a certificate, and that the Respondents are entitled to recover the amount claimed in the action.’

Judges:

Lord Thankerton

Citations:

[1947] AC 428

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromLeyland and Co v Cia Panamena Europea Navigacion CA 1943
Goddard LJ said: ‘He, therefore, was unwilling to carry out the duty assigned by the contract to him. The defendants either were of the same opinion or adopted his view; for this purpose, it matters not which. Consequently, they neither required him . .

Cited by:

CitedAMEC Mining v Scottish Coal Company SCS 6-Aug-2003
The pursuers contracted to remove coal by opencast mining from the defender’s land. They said the contract assumed the removal first of substantial peat depositys from the surface by a third party. They had to do that themselves at substantial cost. . .
AppliedHounslow London Borough Council v Twickenham Gardens Development Limited 1971
The defendant, a building contractor, had been allowed into occupation of a site owned by the plaintiff council under a building contract. The council had sought to determine the contract by notice under its terms. The contractor refused to vacate . .
CitedAmec Civil Engineering Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport CA 17-Mar-2005
The contractors appealed a decision that an arbitrator had jurisdiction to hear a claim against them in respect of works carried out on the Thelwall viaduct. The contractors denied that there had been a dispute which could found a reference, and no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Arbitration

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.185452

W Lamb Limited (Trading As The Premier Pump and Tank Company) v J Jarvis and Sons Plc: TCC 31 Jul 1998

Contractors built a petrol station, and sub-contractors the underground piping. Leaks developed, and it was agreed to complete repairs, and apportion financial repairs through the court proceedings. In a case where a judge found it difficult to apportion blame, he could return to rely upon the question of onus. The parties had not alleged contributory negligence, and no apportionment could be made under the Act. There had been no sufficient agreement as to apportionment to prevent the judge reading it as necessary to give it business sense. Where there was multiple causation of damage, it was appropriate to distribute responsibility accordingly.
Court Service The Plaintiff, as sub-contractor to the Defendant, installed the pipework for a petrol filling station. The Defendant was responsible for the concrete supporting and surrounding the pipework. The pipework developed leaks and had to be replaced. The parties had agreed that the replacement works be carried out, reserving their positions as to the expense, for which each sought to make the other liable. The current trial was of liability only. In substance the only issue was whether the pipes failed because of faulty workmanship by the Plaintiff or because of the acts or omissions of the Defendant.
Held: (i) the failure was caused equally by the defaults of the Plaintiff and the Defendant; (ii) there was no rule of law which prevented effect from being given to that finding; (iii) the Defendant should pay one third of the Plaintiff’s costs of the trial.

Judges:

Judge Hicks QC

Citations:

[1998] EWHC Technology 304

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Liability (Contributions) Act 1978

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedMorris v London Iron and Steel Co Ltd CA 1987
In exceptional cases, a judge conscientiously seeking to decide the issues between the parties might have to conclude ‘I just do not know’. . .
CitedTennant Radiant Heat Ltd v Warrington Development Corporation 1988
A property comprised a large building let on fully repairing leases of 22 units. The many rain outlets were allowed to become blocked, and water accumulated above one unit before that part of the roof collapsed. The landlord appealed a finding that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Evidence, Damages

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.135885

Barry Urquart Associates (a firm) v East Surrey Health Authority: CA 22 Jan 2002

A health authority appointed the claimant to begin work designing a new hospital. The hospital was completed by the defendant successor authority who had appointed a different firm of architects to complete the work. The claimant appealed a dismissal of its claim for the costs of the initial work undertaken.
Held: The contact failed to include any clause entitling payment for the initial works. Earlier papers suggesting this might happen had not been incorporated into the contract.

Judges:

Lord Justice Latham, Mr Justice Wilson

Citations:

Gazette 01-Feb-2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction, Contract

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.167556

G 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 character. He refused to give the plaintiff the cost of reinstatement, but awarded instead the sum of andpound;250 as damages for bad workmanship. The defects as not being very serious, and accordingly that it would be unreasonable to go to the expense of completely stripping the tiles.
Held: The appeal failed.
Sir David Cairns said that the judge’s finding that it would be unreasonable to award the cost of reinstatement was not open to attack on appeal: ‘[Counsel for the defendant] accepts that in some cases it would be grossly unreasonable, or capricious, or perverse, to suggest reinstatement and that in such a case some other basis of assessment must be found. I confess that I can see no reason in principle, nor any support in the authorities, for the proposition that the test is other than lack of reasonableness simpliciter . .’
Ackner LJ said: ‘I accept that the court must have some regard for the predilections of the building owner, but that is only one of the factors. To take a wholly fanciful example; the half round tiles at the edge of the bath . . were white. They did not match the tiles as they should have done. If, for the purpose of this argument, they could only have been removed and replaced by the removal of all the tiles in the bathroom at a cost of several hundred pounds, would it have been reasonable for the plaintiff to have required this to be done? [Counsel for the defendant] contends that his client is entitled to say, ‘I want what I bargained for. What you have done is unacceptable to me.’ Such an approach seems to me to make his client the sole arbiter of what is ‘reasonable.”
Stephenson LJ agreed with both judgments.

Judges:

Stephenson LJ, Ackner LJ, Sir David Cairns

Citations:

(1980) 7 Const LJ 215

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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.

Construction, Damages

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.526103

Walter Wardle v The Very Reverend John Bethune: PC 20 Nov 1871

Article 1688 of the Civil Code of Lower Canada enacts that, ‘I If a building perish in the whole or in part within ten years, from a defect in construction, or even from the unfavourable nature of the ground, the Architect superintending the work and the Builder are jointly and severally liable for the loss.’ Such Article held to be declaratory of the law of Lower Canada, as it existed before the promulgation of the Code. A Builder, before the passing of the Code, contracted to execute, in a workmanlike manner, all the work requisite to be done in building and completing Christ Church Cathedral, in Lower Canada, according to the plans and drawings made by an Architect, upon foundations already made and completed by a previous Builder, under the direction of his Employer’s Architect, the expense of which foundations the contract stipulated should be estimated and allowed for. The Builder erected the Cathedral in strict conformity with the contract, under the direction of the Architect, and in a workmanlike manner; but the Tower of the Cathedral, shortly after it was erected, and before the works were completed, sunk, and considerable damage was done. The cause of the sinking was found to be the insufficiency of the foundations, as planned by the original Architect, and constructed by the former Builder. This defect, though not patent, might have been discovered by the Builder of the Cathedral, before making the contract : Held (affirming the judgment of the Court of Queen’s Bench to Lower Canada), in an action by the Builder against his employer (the Employer claiming to deduct from the contract price agreed to be paid to the Builder, the amount of his charge for repairing the damages caused to the building by the sinking of the Tower, through the insufficiency of the foundations) that the Employer was entitled to make the deduction, as the Builder was responsible for the defect in the foundations, and was not freed from liability either by acting under the directions of his Employer’s Architect, or by reason of the defective foundations being the work of the preceding Builder. The decision in the case of Brown v. Laurie adopted.

Citations:

[1871] EngR 46, (1871) 8 Moo PC NS 223, (1871) 17 ER 296

Links:

Commonlii

Construction, Commonwealth

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.280227

London Borough of Merton v Leach: 1985

The defendant agreed to construct 287 dwellings for the plaintiff. There were disputes on various matters and an arbitration took place. Eleven issues were appealed.
Held: There was an implied term that the plaintiff would not hinder the defendant in its performance, and that the parties would do what they could to achieve performance. The plaintiff’s architect in particular was obliged to supply accurate specifications.

Judges:

Vinelott J

Citations:

(1985) 32 BLR 51

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedPersimmon Homes (South Coast) Ltd v Hall Aggregates (South Coast) Ltd and Another TCC 10-Oct-2008
The parties had agreed for the sale of land under an option agreement. The builder purchasers now sought to exercise rights to adjust the price downwards.
Held: The provisions had been intended and had achieved a prompt and binding settlement . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.277769

William Tompkinson and Sons Ltd v St Michaels Parochial Church Council: 1990

Judges:

Judge Stannard

Citations:

[1990] CLJ 319

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedPearce and High Ltd v Baxter and Another CA 24-Mar-1999
The clause in JCT specifying procedures for claiming against contractors did not oust the employers’ common law rights. An employer failing to give notice under the defects liability clause in time, could still sue under common law for the defect. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.277768

Clark Contracts v The Burrell Co (Construction Management) Ltd (Second Debate): ScSf 1 Oct 2002

Judges:

Sheriff J.A. Taylor

Citations:

2002 SLT 103

Links:

ScotC

Statutes:

Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 111

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

CitedRupert Morgan Building Services (LLC) Ltd v Jervis and Jervis CA 12-Nov-2003
The defendants had engaged the claimants under standard form clauses for construction work. They issued a notice to withold payment, but out of time.
Held: The section required the notice to be given with the prescribed period. The risk of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.182021

Blaenau Gwent Borough Council v Sabz Ali Khan: CA 4 May 1993

A land-owner is liable for work he has ordered to be carried out on his property. The ‘person carrying out the work under the regulations may not be the person or only the person who physically does the work.

Citations:

Times 04-May-1993

Statutes:

Building Regulations 1985 (1985 No 1065) 14(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Health and Safety, Construction

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.78441

Trollope and Colls Limited and Holland, Hannen and Cubitts Ltd, trading as Nuclear Civil Contractors (a firm) v The Atomic Power Construction Ltd: 1962

It is possible for a construction contract to have retrospective effect, in a situation where work has commenced before any contractual relationship has been entered into between the parties involved.

Citations:

[1962] 3 All E R 1936

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.241560

Imodco 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.

Judges:

Glidewell LJ

Citations:

(1987) 40 BLR 1

Cited by:

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.

Construction, Damages

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.526099

Minscombe 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.

Judges:

O’Connor LJ

Citations:

(1986) 2 Const LJ 303

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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.

Construction, Damages

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.526100

Bellgrove 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 on the facts.
The court approved the rule as stated in Hudson on Building Contracts that: ‘The measure of the damages recoverable by the building owner for the breach of a building contract is . . the difference between the contract price of the work or building contracted for and the cost of making the work or building conform to the contract’ as to the case law: ‘In none of these cases is anything more done than that work which is required to achieve conformity and the cost of the work, whether it be necessary to replace only a small part, or a substantial part, or, indeed, the whole of the building is, subject to the qualification which we have already mentioned and to which we shall refer, together with any appropriate consequential damages, the extent of the building owner’s loss. The qualification, however, to which this rule is subject is that, not only must the work undertaken be necessary to produce conformity, but that also, it must be a reasonable course to adopt.’
The cost of reinstatement work subject to the qualification of reasonableness was the extent of the loss. Reasonableness was a factor to be considered in determining what was that loss rather than, as had been argued, merely a factor in determining which of two alternative remedies were appropriate for a loss once established.
The land owner, having contracted for a building, is, as a general rule, entitled to have a building which conforms with the contract plans, the High Court continued: ‘The qualification, however, to which this rule is subject is that, not only must the work undertaken be necessary to produce conformity, but that also, it must be a reasonable course to adopt. No one would doubt that where pursuant to a building contract calling for the erection of a house with cement rendered external walls of second-hand bricks, the builder has constructed the walls of new bricks of first quality the owner would not be entitled to the cost of demolishing the walls and re-erecting them in second-hand bricks. In such circumstances the work of demolition and re-erection would be quite unreasonable or it would, to use a term current in the United States, constitute ‘economic waste’ . . We prefer, however, to think that the building owner’s right to undertake remedial works at the expense of a builder is not subject to any limit other than is to be found in the expressions ‘necessary’ and ‘reasonable’, for the expression ‘economic waste’ appears to us to go too far and would deny to a building owner the right to demolish a structure which, though satisfactory as a structure of a particular type, is quite different in character from that called for by the contract. Many examples may, of course, be given of remedial work, which though necessary to produce conformity would not constitute a reasonable method of dealing with the situation and in such cases the true measure of the building owner’s loss will be the diminution in value, if any, produced by the departure from the plans and specifications or by the defective workmanship or materials. As to what remedial work is both ‘necessary’ and ‘reasonable’ in any particular case is a question of fact.’

Citations:

(1954) 90 CLR 613

Cited by:

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, Commonwealth, Construction

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.526101

Wolverhampton Corporation v Emmons: 1901

The court granted an order for specific performance of a covenant in a building contract. Romer LJ said that the first condition for specific enforcement of a building contract was that ‘the particulars of the work are so far definitely ascertained that the court can sufficiently see what is the exact nature of the work of which it is asked to order the performance’.

Judges:

Romer LJ

Citations:

[1901] 1 QB 515

Cited by:

CitedCo-Operative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll Stores HL 21-May-1997
The tenants of a unit on a large shopping centre found the business losing money, and closed it in contravention of a ‘keep open’ clause in the lease. They now appealed from a mandatory injunction requiring them to keep the store open.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Construction

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.247893

Skandia Property (Uk) Limited Vala Properties Bv v Thames Water Utilities Limited: 1997

The burden of proof in establishing betterment to reduce a damages award is on the defendant.

Citations:

(1997) 57 Con LR 65

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromSkandia Property (UK) Limited Vala Properties Bv v Thames Water Utilities Limited CA 27-Jul-1999
The defendants were liable after a flood invaded and damaged the plaintiff’s premises. Having been advised professionally that the waterproofing system in the property would need replacing, the plaintiffs so replaced it but, it turned out, . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Damages

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.238589

C 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 reinstate the property and remarked that the damages to be awarded were to be reasonable as between plaintiff and defendant. He concluded that in the case before him to award the notional cost of reinstatement would be unreasonable since it would put the plaintiffs in a far better financial position then they would have been before the fire occurred.

Judges:

May J

Citations:

[1977] 1 WLR 659, [1977] 2 All ER 784

Cited by:

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 . .
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

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.238583

John Barker Construction Ltd v London Portman Hotel Ltd: 1996

An architect who had to decide whether to grant an extension of time under clause 25 of the JCT conditions would not have acted fairly and lawfully and his decision would be fundamentally flawed if he had not carried out a logical analysis in a methodical way of the impact of the relevant events on the contractor’s programme and made only ‘an impressionistic, rather than a calculated, assessment’ and: ‘I accept that the assessment of a fair and reasonable extension involves an exercise of judgment, but that judgment must be fairly and rationally based.’

Judges:

Mr Recorder Toulson QC

Citations:

(1996) 83 BLR 31

Cited by:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.235382

Griffin v Midas Homes Ltd: 2000

In respect of part of their claim in an adjudication, the claimants failed to comply with the requirements of paragraph 1(3) of the statutory scheme for construction contracts which formed an implied term of the contract between the parties. That failure consisted of a lack of clarity in the notice of adjudication.
Held: As to that part of the claim, the adjudicator did not have jutisdiction. An adjudicator was held to have had authority to decide some of the questions put before him, but not others. Only the party that sought adjudication was liable for the adjudicator’s fees, expenses and costs in so far as they related to the matters which were outside the adjudicator’s jurisdiction.

Judges:

Judge Humphrey LLoyd QC

Citations:

(2000) 78 Con LR 152

Cited by:

CitedJohn Roberts Architects Ltd v Parkcare Homes (No. 2) Ltd TCC 25-Jul-2005
The defendant had taken a dispute to adjudication, but then abandoned those proceedings, upon which the adjudicator awarded costs against the defendant which the claimant now sought to enforce. The defendant argued that the award was outside the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration, Construction

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.230380

Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association Ltd v Trollope and Colls Ltd: CA 1986

The employers sued the builders and architects alleging defects in the air conditioning system. Later, cracking and displacement of the walls was discovered, caused allegedly by not having sulphate resisting cement, and defects in the wall ties. Allegations were made against the contractors and the architects and also structural engineers. The question then arose whether the amendments raised new claims for the purposes of section 35 of the 1980 Act.
Held: May LJ said: ‘I think it is necessary to adopt a broad approach to these cases. At the stage of the issue of the writ or the service of the statement of claim, in the present context one is not, as I think, concerned with the minutiae of the cause of action which will ultimately have to be investigated at the trial. In the Limitation Act context, one asks in quite broad terms whether the relevant factual situation . . first came about, first was suable upon more than the three, six or twelve years previously. In the res judicata context one has to ask whether the issues in the hypothetical second action were realistically before the court in the hypothetical first action. Merely to rely upon the propositions which I have already quoted from Brunsden v Humphrey in the judgment of Bowen LJ, which was referred to in the judgment of Sankey LJ in Conquer v Boot , that it is a well settled rule of law that damages resulting from one and the same cause of action must be assessed and recovered once and for all, (entirely accurate though that is and I would not wish, with respect, to differ at all), nevertheless in the instant context I think that it effectively begs the whole question at the outset.’
and ‘In the present case, if one remembers what a cause of action is (for instance, to refer back to the dictum in Letang), if one looks to the size of this particular building, to its complexities, to other matters of degree, to the statement of claim before the proposed reamendment, to the attitude of the appellants’ solicitors in the correspondence at the material time, to which I have referred, and avoids what I think are unnecessary subtleties, I feel bound to agree with the learned judge where he concluded, having referred to the cases on what is a cause of action, the statement of claim in both its original and amended form related only to the air conditioning. I think that its effect was to narrow the causes of action so that they became confined to breaches of contract concerned with air conditioning and negligence resulting in damages to the air conditioning. In the light of the definitions of a cause of action already referred to, I do not think one can look only to the duty on a party, but one must look also to the nature and extent of the breach relied upon, as well as to the nature and extent of the damage complained of in deciding whether, as a matter of degree, a new cause of action is sought to be relied upon. The mere fact that one is considering what are, as it is said, after all only different defects to the same building, does not necessarily mean in any way that they are constituents of one and the same cause of action.
Thus I conclude that whether there is a new cause of action in any circumstances is a mixed question of law and fact. I am satisfied that the learned judge correctly directed himself on the law on this point, and not only am I unable to say that he applied the law incorrectly to the facts of the case, I think positively that he applied that law correctly to the facts of the case.’
and ‘In my opinion, to issue a writ against a party . . when it is not intended to serve a statement of claim, and where one has no reasonable evidence or grounds on which to serve a statement of claim against that particular party, is an abuse of the process of the court.’
Lloyd LJ said: ‘in each case it will depend on the facts whether the damage gives rise to a separate cause of action, or not’ and ‘there may be separate causes of action in relation to the same building, depending upon the facts of the case.’

Judges:

Lloyd LJ and May LJ

Citations:

[1986] 33 BLR 77

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 35

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSavings and Investment Bank Ltd (in Liquidation) v Fincken CA 6-Nov-2001
When the court was asked to decide whether a proposed form of amendment to the pleadings would add an issue which was out of time, the court must look to the pleadings before and after the proposed amendment, and the factual issues which would have . .
CitedMcDonalds Corp and Another v Steel and Another CA 25-Mar-1994
The plaintiff company had sued the defendants in defamation with regard to a leaflet publishd and distributed by them. The defendants argued justification. The defendants appealed against an order striking out parts of their defence, saying that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Limitation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.183221

Staveley Industries Plc (T/A Ei Whs) v Odebrecht Oil and Gas Services Ltd: TCC 8 Mar 2001

Contracts were entered into to design, engineer and supply equipment for installation on oil and gas rigs. The contractor sought to assert that these were contracts governed by the Act, and the provisions for dispute resolution applied. The court held that the act suggested that the construction was to take place on ‘the Land’ and that there was no intention to include offshore installations within the Act.

Citations:

Gazette 08-Mar-2001

Statutes:

Interpretation Act 1978, Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract, Construction, Arbitration

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.89517

Pearce and High Ltd v Baxter and Another: CA 24 Mar 1999

The clause in JCT specifying procedures for claiming against contractors did not oust the employers’ common law rights. An employer failing to give notice under the defects liability clause in time, could still sue under common law for the defect.

Citations:

Times 24-Mar-1999, [1999] 66 Con LR 110

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedWilliam Tompkinson and Sons Ltd v St Michaels Parochial Church Council 1990
. .

Cited by:

CitedPersimmon Homes (South Coast) Ltd v Hall Aggregates (South Coast) Ltd and Another TCC 10-Oct-2008
The parties had agreed for the sale of land under an option agreement. The builder purchasers now sought to exercise rights to adjust the price downwards.
Held: The provisions had been intended and had achieved a prompt and binding settlement . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.84628

Andrews v Schooling: CA 1991

The plaintiff owned a 199 year lease of premises and sought compensation under the Act damp from the cellar. The defence said the development had not included work done on the cellar and therefore section 1 did not apply.
Held: The defence failed. If the owner of a plot of land instructs a builder to erect a dwelling house but he fails to include a damp course, leaving the house, not fit for human habitation. Parliament could not have intended that the builder would be free from any duty under section 1(1). The exception (and the exception to the exception) under subsection (2) would serve no purpose. Subsection (4) was conclusive in favour of the construction that includes nonfeasance within the scope of the duty. If a developer who is professionally qualified, e.g. an architect or surveyor, instructs a builder to erect a dwelling house or to convert an existing house into a number of separate dwellings. His instructions are detailed, but make no provision for inclusion of a damp course, which is necessary if the dwelling is to be fit for habitation when completed. The builder will be exempt under subsection (2). But the developer, who will not have physically done any work, is to be treated under subsection (4) as a person who has taken on the work. There was no difference between acts of commission and of omission.

Judges:

Balcombe LJ

Citations:

[1991] 1 WLR 783

Statutes:

Defective Premises Act 1972 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedAlderson, Alderson v Beetham Organisation Limited CA 2-Apr-2003
The claimants appealed rejection of their claim as out of time under the Act. The property was constructed in 1994, but came to suffer from damp. They were advised of the defect and possible action in 1995, but failed to begin proceedings until . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Limitation

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.180873

North Midland Building Ltd v Cyden Homes Ltd: CA 30 Jul 2018

The court considered the validity of a clause in a building contract which provided that, where there was a delay caused by an event for which the contractor was responsible, and that delay was concurrent with a delay for which the employer was responsible, such concurrent delay would not be taken into account when calculating any extension of time to the contract completion date. It was the appellant contractor’s case that this clause was contrary to what has come to be known as ‘the prevention principle’ and therefore ineffective.

Citations:

[2018[ EWCA Civ 1744

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction, Contract

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620472

Revenue and Customs v Wetheralds Construction Ltd: UTTC 30 May 2018

VALUE ADDED TAX – reduced rate supply -energy saving materials – whether appellant’s Solid Roof System a supply of insulation for roofs within VATA 1994 Schedule 7A Group 2 – no – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 173 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Construction

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.617296

Plant Construction Plc v Clive Adams Associates, JMH Construction Services (2): TCC 31 Mar 2000

The case had been remitted to the court to settle the apportionment of damages in a case of breach of contract, rather than in tort. When assessing levels of contribution causation alone is important but not the entire criteria. In cases where both parties would have had to act with due care and skill to avoid the damage, the question is whether a breach was causative, whether alone or as being one of concurrent causes with the other’s negligence, such that but for the concurrence of those causes the damage would not have occurred.

Judges:

Judge Hicks QC

Citations:

1996 ORB 750

Citing:

AppliedHeskell v Continental Express Ltd 1950
The court discussed how a warranty of authority could arise in an agent: ‘An agent who warrants that he has authority need warrant no more than the bare fact. In the absence of special circumstances, he makes no warranty or representation about how . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Construction

Updated: 11 April 2022; Ref: scu.135952

McNicholas Plc v AEI Cables Limited: TCC 25 May 1999

The claimant had subcontracted to supply cabling on the defendant’s project. The contract provided both for the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts but also for arbitration. The defendant applied for the action to be stayed and referred to arbitration. The claimant said the clause was ineffective being uncertain within s9 of the 1996 Act, and also unenforceable as an unfair contract term
Held: The reference clause was effective, and the court action should be stayed for arbitration. ‘Wherever possible, a court will seek to uphold a contract rather than to destroy it. In my judgment it is plain that clause 8 of this sub-contract has two purposes. First, it selected the law that was to be applied to the contract. The reference to the English Courts having exclusive jurisdiction over the agreement is curious since both parties are English companies and the works are in England so this stipulation may be redundant, but equally there may have been a good reason for it. It is however clear that clause 9 is intended to ensure that disputes in a wide variety of circumstances should either be referred to arbitration or should be subject to some other regime. I have no doubt that the reference to the English courts having jurisdiction can be read satisfactorily with clause 9 since it must be taken to be the parties’ intention that in so far as it was necessary to have recourse to any court to deal with any matter arising out of the agreement which could not be dealt with by the arbitrator then the English courts would be the appropriate court. ‘
The abrogation clause was strikingly unclear, but remained effective. The court approved the statement: ‘Incapable of being performed’ connotes something more than mere difficulty or inconvenience or delay in performing the arbitration. There must be some obstacle which must be overcome even if the parties are ready, able and willing to perform the agreement.’ The agreement did not provide the claimant of an opportunity to have its disagreement dealt with fairly if the defendant gave notice to abrogate the agreement to arbitrate, but no such notice had been given.
The clause was unreasonable under the 1977 Act because it risked one party being unable to have its complaint adjudicated upon, and also being unable to have adjudicated an unrelated matter.

Judges:

Humphrey Lloyd QC

Citations:

Unreported 25 May 1999

Statutes:

Arbitration Act 1996 9, Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 13(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedLovelock Limited v Exportles CA 1968
The contract provided both that a dispute must to be referred to arbitration in London and also for any other dispute must be referred to arbitration in Moscow.
Held: The conflicting requirements for arbitration were so ambiguous as to be . .
CitedPaul Smith Ltd v H and S International Holdings Inc ChD 1991
The contract between the parties said both that any disupte should be referred to arbitration, and that ‘The Courts in England shall have exclusive jurisdiction over it to which jurisdiction the parties hereby submit.’ The plaintiffs said the . .
CitedRedland Aggregates Limited v Shephard Hill Civil Engineering Limited CA 11-Dec-1998
The opinion which the contract provided for the main contractor to hold under the 1984 edition of the FCEC form had to be bona fide, and perhaps also reasonable. . .
CitedBremer Vulkan Schiffbau und Maschineenfabrik v South India Shipping Coroporation HL 1981
The parties had referred their dispute to arbitration, but there had been inordinate delay, and the plaintiffs complained that the delay had prejudiced them, and sought an injunction to prevent further contuance of the arbitration, saying that the . .
CitedWest of England Ship Owners Mutual Insurance Association (Luxembourg) v Cristal Ltd (The Glacier Bay) CA 26-Oct-1995
An agreement giving to a ‘sole judge’ the power to make a final decision was effective, and there was no appeal from his decision. The defendant’s decision in his capacity as Convention administrator was as a final arbiter and was unreviewable.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Arbitration

Updated: 11 April 2022; Ref: scu.136037

Postermobile Plc v Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Council: QBD 8 Jun 2000

A builder was convicted after having a hoarding erected which announced forthcoming building works, but where such works were not in fact begun within the three month rule. The conviction was upheld, since the regulations were quite clear. The rule was a relaxation, and it was for those taking advantage of that relaxation to bring themselves within it.

Citations:

Gazette 08-Jun-2000

Planning, Construction

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84817

Manchester and District Housing Association v Fearnley Construction Ltd (In Voluntary Liquidation) and Another: ChD 17 Aug 2000

The defendant builder contracted to build on and then convey the land and building to the claimant. The builder charged the land, but failed to complete the building, and went into liquidation. The claimant sought specific performance with a reduction of the purchase price reflecting the breach. The builder asserted that the obligation to sell only arose on the completion of the building. It was held that the claimant was entitled to the land, since the builder could not rely upon his own fault. Any conditionality was gone once the building work began.

Citations:

Gazette 17-Aug-2000

Construction, Land

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83364