Secretary of State for Defence v Turner Estate Solutions Ltd: TCC 30 Apr 2015

The defendant company had contracted for construction works at HMNB Clyde. The contract provided for payment to vary according to actual costs and a profit margin, but subject to a maximum. The costs would now well exceed the maximum charge, and argued that since the parties had ceased to use the change procedures, it was entitled to renegotiate and claim their actual costs and a profit margin.

Judges:

Coulson J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 1150 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction, Contract

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.546221

Risegold Ltd v Escala Ltd: CA 28 Oct 2008

The parties disputed the extent of an easement granted in a transfer, and in particular whether the works for which the entry was to be used amounted to ‘rebuilding or renewal’ of the property.
Held: The easement had been granted against a background where it had been anticipated that the building would require demolition. The works proposed fell within the clause.

Judges:

Mummery LJ, Arden LJ, Keene LJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 1180

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Land, Construction

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.277281

Ezekiel v McDade: CA 1995

As a result of the negligence of their builders, the plaintiffs were rendered homeless persons living in single room council accommodation for a long period. The builder appealed an award of andpound;6,000.
Held: The award should be reduced to andpound;4,000 for general damages for physical inconvenience and discomfort caused by the defendants’ negligence and for mental suffering directly related to it.

Citations:

[1995] 47 EG 150

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedWatts and Co v Morrow CA 30-Jul-1991
The plaintiff had bought a house on the faith of the defendant’s report that there were only limited defects requiring repair. In fact the defects were much more extensive. The defendant surveyor appealed against an award of damages after his . .

Cited by:

DistinguishedBoynton and Another v Willers CA 3-Jul-2003
The appellants challenged a finding that they were liable for their builders’ bill.
Held: Work which had been rejected had not in fact been charged for. The defendant’s appeal on that point failed. The measure of damages for distress and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Construction

Updated: 12 December 2022; Ref: scu.184246

Barclays Bank Plc v Fairclough Building Ltd (No 2): CA 15 Feb 1995

Contractors taking on building work should be assumed to have taken account of the possible presence of asbestos when quoting for the work.

Citations:

Times 15-Feb-1995, Ind Summary 20-Feb-1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See alsoBarclays Bank Plc v Fairclough Building Ltd CA 11-May-1994
Contributory negligence is no defence to a claim which was made out strictly in contract only. . .

Cited by:

See alsoBarclays Bank Plc v Fairclough Building Ltd CA 11-May-1994
Contributory negligence is no defence to a claim which was made out strictly in contract only. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Construction

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.78203

Bresco Electrical Services Ltd v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd: SC 17 Jun 2020

This case is about the relationship between (a) the adjudication regime for building disputes and (b) a rule of insolvency law called insolvency set-off.

Judges:

Lord Reed (President), Lord Briggs, Lord Kitchin, Lord Hamblen, Lord Leggatt

Citations:

[2020] UKSC 25

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Arbitration, Insolvency, Construction

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.651724

Bolton v Mahadeva: CA 13 Apr 1972

Appeal from judgment in favour of the Plaintiff in an action for work done and materials supplied in connection with central heating installation and other work at the Defendant’s house.

Citations:

[1972] EWCA Civ 5, [1972] 2 All ER 1322, [1972] 1 WLR 1009

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.262749

Multiplex Construction Ltd v Cleveland Bridge Ltd and Another: CA 6 Feb 2008

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 133, 118 Con LR 16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoCleveland Bridge UK Ltd v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd TCC 31-Aug-2005
A third party television company sought access to the particulars of claim and other pleadings.
Held: HH Judge Wilcox said: ‘There can be no legitimate distinction drawn between decisions made in interlocutory proceedings and those at final . .
See AlsoMultiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd TCC 5-Jun-2006
. .
See AlsoMultiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another CA 20-Dec-2006
. .
See AlsoMultiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd (No. 2) TCC 31-Jan-2007
. .
See AlsoMultiplex Construction (Uk) Ltd v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd TCC 8-Feb-2007
Application for permission to appeal. Jackson J considered whether permission to appeal should have been requested at the hearing: ‘It seems to me that I have got to interpret the provisions of Rule 52.3 and the provisions of the Practice Direction . .
See AlsoMultiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd (No. 2) TCC 6-Mar-2007
. .
See AlsoMultiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd (No 3) TCC 12-Mar-2007
. .
See AlsoCleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd CA 27-Apr-2007
The court construed an agreement supplemental to a construction contract. . .
See AlsoMultiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another CA 21-Dec-2007
. .

Cited by:

See AlsoMultiplex Construction (Uk) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another TCC 7-Feb-2008
. .
See AlsoMultiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another TCC 19-Mar-2008
. .
See AlsoMultiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another TCC 29-Sep-2008
. .
See AlsoMultiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another (No 7) TCC 29-Sep-2008
Last stage of the Wembley stadium construction dispute. Jackson J, interpreting Carver said that it set out: ‘how the court ought to approach the matter in circumstances where: (a) one party has made an offer which was nearly but not quite . .
See AlsoCleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd CA 19-Feb-2010
. .
See AlsoCleveland Bridge Uk Ltd and Another v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd CA 31-Mar-2010
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Construction

Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.266009

Reinwood Ltd v L Brown and Sons Ltd: CA 21 Jun 2007

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 601, [2007] CILL 2486, (2007) 151 SJLB 855, [2007] 1 CLC 959, [2007] BLR 305, 114 Con LR 211

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromReinwood Ltd v L Brown and Sons Ltd HL 20-Feb-2008
The employer received a notice of non-completion from his architect, and in turn served a notice on the contractor under section 111, and deducted damages for non-completion from the next payment. The contractor said this was not allowed because the . .
See AlsoReinwood Ltd v L Brown and Sons Ltd CA 17-Oct-2008
The court was asked whether a contractor under a particular building contract was entitled to determine the contract and walk away, or whether such behaviour amounted to a repudiation entitling the main contractor to damages. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.253538

Co-Operative Wholesale Society Ltd (Trading As CWS Engineering Group) v Birse Construction Ltd et Cetera: CA 23 Jul 1997

JCT terms not intended to protect sub-contractor against insolvency of the main contractor allowing claim against main employer.

Citations:

Gazette 23-Jul-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 2062

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction, Arbitration

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.79488

Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another: CA 21 Dec 2007

Judges:

Lord Justice May

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 1372

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoCleveland Bridge UK Ltd v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd TCC 31-Aug-2005
A third party television company sought access to the particulars of claim and other pleadings.
Held: HH Judge Wilcox said: ‘There can be no legitimate distinction drawn between decisions made in interlocutory proceedings and those at final . .
See AlsoMultiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd TCC 5-Jun-2006
. .
See AlsoMultiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another CA 20-Dec-2006
. .
See AlsoMultiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd (No. 2) TCC 31-Jan-2007
. .
See AlsoMultiplex Construction (Uk) Ltd v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd TCC 8-Feb-2007
Application for permission to appeal. Jackson J considered whether permission to appeal should have been requested at the hearing: ‘It seems to me that I have got to interpret the provisions of Rule 52.3 and the provisions of the Practice Direction . .
See AlsoMultiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd (No. 2) TCC 6-Mar-2007
. .
See AlsoMultiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd (No 3) TCC 12-Mar-2007
. .
See AlsoCleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd CA 27-Apr-2007
The court construed an agreement supplemental to a construction contract. . .

Cited by:

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

Construction

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.263408

Darlington 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. Bernard Sunley and Sons Ltd. ([1965] 3 All ER 619, [1966] AC 406). But where the cost of remedying the defects involves expense out of all proportion to the benefit which could accrue from it, the court is entitled to adopt the alternative measure of difference of the value of the works . .’

Judges:

Dillon, Steyn, Waite LJJ

Citations:

[1994] EWCA Civ 6, [1995] 1 WLR 68, [1995] 3 All ER 895

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedEast 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. . .

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 . .
CitedGard Marine and Energy Ltd and Another v China National Chartering Company Ltd and Another SC 10-May-2017
The dispute followed the grounding of a tanker the Ocean Victory. The ship was working outside of a safe port requirement in the charterparty agreement. The contract required the purchase of insurance against maritime war and protection and . .
CitedLowick Rose Llp v Swynson Ltd and Another SC 11-Apr-2017
Losses arose from the misvaluation of a company before its purchase. The respondent had funded the purchase, relying upon a valuation by the predecessor of the appellant firm of accountants. Further advances had been made when the true situation was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Damages

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.263235

Bovis International Inc v The Circle Ltd Partnership: 1995

It is no defence to the party in breach that by reason of the agent’s dealings with a third party the actual incidence of the loss may fall elsewhere.

Citations:

(1995) 49 Con LR 12

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.218910

Ferson Contractors Limited v Levolux A T Limited: CA 22 Jan 2003

Judges:

Lord Justice Ward Lord Justice Mantell Mr Justice Longmore

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 11, [2003] 86 Con LR 98

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoLevolux A T Ltd v Ferson Contractors Ltd CA 8-Aug-2002
. .

Cited by:

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

Construction

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.178802

Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd and Others; St. Martins Property Corporation Ltd v Sir Robert McAlpine: HL 8 Dec 1993

A contractor had done defective work in breach of a building contract with the developer but the loss was suffered by a third party who had by then purchased the development. The developer recovered the loss suffered by the purchaser.
Held: The benefit of a contract may be assigned to a third party without the consent of the other contracting party. If this is not desired, it is open to the parties to agree that the benefit of the contract shall not be assignable by one or either of them, either at all or without the consent of the other party. The JCT conditions providing for a prohibition against assignment of obligations under the contract, was not contrary to public policy, and a purported assignment in breach of that condition was ineffective. The House made available a remedy as a matter of law to solve the problem of transferred loss in the case before them. Both contractor and employer were aware that the property was going to be occupied and possibly purchased by third parties.
Held: It could be foreseen that a breach of the contract might cause loss to others than the employer. A court will have to examine a contract to see if the exception identified in Albazero applied in a contract.
Lord Griffiths said: ‘In cases such as the present the person who places the contract has suffered financial loss because he has to spend money to give him the benefit of the bargain which the defendant had promised but failed to deliver. I therefore cannot accept that it is a condition of recovery in such cases that the plaintiff has a proprietary right in the subject matter of the contract at the date of breach.’
Lord Browne-Wilkinson said: ‘On the contrary, McAlpine had specifically contracted that the rights of action under the building contract could not without McAlpine’s consent be transferred to third parties who became owners or occupiers and might suffer loss. In such a case, it seems to me proper, as in the case of the carriage of goods by land, to treat the parties as having entered into the contract on the footing that Corporation would be entitled to enforce contractual rights for the benefit of those who suffered from defective performance but who, under the terms of the contract, could not acquire any right to hold McAlpine liable for breach. It is truly a case in which the rule provides ‘a remedy where no other would be available to a person sustaining loss which under a rational legal system ought to be compensated by the person who has caused it.’ The Corporation, faced with a breach by McAlpine of their contractual duty to perform the contract with sound materials and with all reasonable skill and care, would be entitled to recover from McAlpine the cost of remedying the defect in the work as the normal measure of damages. There were two possible objections. First, it should not matter that the work was not being done on property owned by Corporation. Where a husband instructs repairs to the roof of the matrimonial home it cannot be said that he has not suffered damage because he did not own the property. He suffers the damage measured by the cost of a proper completion of the repair: ‘In cases such as the present the person who places the contract has suffered financial loss because he has to spend money to give him the benefit of the bargain which the defendant had promised but failed to deliver.’ The second objection, that Corporation had in fact been reimbursed for the cost of the repairs was answered by the consideration that the person who actually pays for the repairs is of no concern to the party who broke the contract, but ‘The court will of course wish to be satisfied that the repairs have been or are likely to be carried out but if they are carried out the cost of doing them must fall upon the defendant who broke his contract.’

Judges:

Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Griffiths

Citations:

Times 23-Jul-1993, Gazette 08-Dec-1993, Independent 30-Jul-1993, [1994] 1 AC 85, [1993] UKHL 4, [1993] 3 All ER 417

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Insolvency Act 1986 286 306 436

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedAlbacruz (Cargo Owners) v Albazero ‘The Albazero’ HL 1977
The House was asked as to the extent to which a consignor can claim damages against a carrier in circumstances where the consignor did not retain either property or risk. To the general principle that a person cannot recover substantial damages for . .
CitedDawes v Peck 1799
Where there is a named consignee on a bill of lading it may be inferred that the contracting party is the consignee not the shipper. . .
Appeal fromLinden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd and Others CA 9-Oct-1990
The claimants had taken an assignment of leasehold premises. They sought to recover for building defects.
Held: The assignment was effective to transfer to Linden Gardens the causes of action for subsisting breaches of contract by M and H and . .

Cited by:

appliedSouth v Chamberlayne ChD 7-Sep-2001
The claimant occupied a house under a 75 year lease. She obtained an order requiring the landlord to sell the freehold reversion to her, and then set out to sell on her interest. She contracted to sell her interest in the property and her statutory . .
CitedMulkerrins v Pricewaterhouse Coopers HL 31-Jul-2003
The claimant sought damages from her former accountants for failing to protect her from bankruptcy. The receiver had unnecessarily caused great difficulties in making their claim that such an action vested in them. The defendants had subsequently, . .
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 . .
CitedSmithkline Beecham Plc and others v Apotex Europe Ltd and others PatC 26-Jul-2005
Application was made to join in further parties to support a cross undertaking on being made subject to interim injunctions.
Held: On orders other than asset freezing orders it was not open to the court to impose cross-undertakings against . .
CitedRegina v Medicines Control Agency ex parte Smith and Nephew (Primecrown Ltd intervening) ChD 1999
The court considered liability to third partries under a cross-undertaking given to the court: ‘Whether the recoverable damage is that which is foreseeable by the plaintiff or that which is directly caused by the injunction is not in point. None of . .
CitedOrion Finance Ltd v J D Williams and Company Ltd CA 23-Jun-1995
The finance company had taken an assignment of the benefit of a lease of computer equipment and sought payment from the defendants. . .
CitedSmithkline Beecham Plc Glaxosmithkline UK Ltd and Another v Apotex Europe Ltd and others (No 2) CA 23-May-2006
The parties to the action had given cross undertakings to support the grant of an interim injunction. A third party subsequently applied to be joined, and now sought to take advantage of the cross undertakings to claim the losses incurred through . .
CitedBarbados Trust Company Ltd v Bank of Zambia and Another CA 27-Feb-2007
The creditor had assigned the debt, but without first giving the debtor defendant the necessary notice. A challenge was made to the ability of the assignee to bring the action, saying that the deed of trust appointed to circumvent the reluctance of . .
CitedCEP Holdings Ltd, CEP Claddings Ltd v STENI As QBD 9-Oct-2009
The claimants asserted breach by the defendant of an exclusive distributor agreement. The defendants said that the claimants had failed, as required by the contract, to use all reasonable endeavours to promote the product.
Held: There was no . .
CitedHelmsley Acceptances Ltd v Hampton CA 11-Mar-2010
The claimant lender sought damages from an allegedly negligent valuation by the defendant. It had syndicated its loan, and the defendant now argued that it could only claim for that part of the loan for which it retained ownership.
Held: The . .
CitedRossetti Marketing Ltd v Diamond Sofa Company Ltd and Another QBD 3-Oct-2011
The claimants sought compensation under the 1993 Rules. The defendants denied that the claimants were agents within the rules, since they also acted as agents for other furniture makers.
Held: Whether a party is a commercial agent within the . .
CitedGard Marine and Energy Ltd and Another v China National Chartering Company Ltd and Another SC 10-May-2017
The dispute followed the grounding of a tanker the Ocean Victory. The ship was working outside of a safe port requirement in the charterparty agreement. The contract required the purchase of insurance against maritime war and protection and . .
CitedLowick Rose Llp v Swynson Ltd and Another SC 11-Apr-2017
Losses arose from the misvaluation of a company before its purchase. The respondent had funded the purchase, relying upon a valuation by the predecessor of the appellant firm of accountants. Further advances had been made when the true situation was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Contract

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.83075

Darlington 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 company then assigned to the council its rights under the building contracts, and the council claimed damages from the builders for breach of the contracts. The builders took the point that the council, as assignee, had no greater rights under the contracts than the finance company had and that, as the finance company did not own the site, it had suffered no loss.
Held: A third party may sue on a contract to recover damages for defects if the benefit of a building contract was intended for them and had been assigned to him. Where there is a right to have an assignment of any cause of action accruing to the employer against the contractor, the exception in Albazero may still apply so as to enable the assignee to recover substantial damages. The fact that the innocent party did not receive the bargain for which he contracted is itself a loss: ‘he suffers a loss of bargain or of expectation interest.’
Steyn LJ: ‘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. Bernard Sunley and Sons Ltd. [19661 A.C. 406. But where the cost of remedying the defects involves expense out of all proportion to the benefit which could accrue from it, the court is entitled to adopt the alternative measure of difference of the value of the works . . .’

Judges:

Dillon, Waite and Steyn LJJ

Citations:

Times 04-Jul-1994, Independent 29-Jun-1994, Gazette 12-Oct-1994, [1995] 1 WLR 68

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedAlbacruz (Cargo Owners) v Albazero ‘The Albazero’ HL 1977
The House was asked as to the extent to which a consignor can claim damages against a carrier in circumstances where the consignor did not retain either property or risk. To the general principle that a person cannot recover substantial damages for . .
AppliedDunlop v Lambert HL 16-Jun-1839
A cargo of whisky was lost in carriage by sea between Leith and Newcastle. A second shipment was made and the loss was claimed. The House was asked whether ‘in a question between a carrier and the person to whom the carrier is responsible in the . .
CitedEast 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. . .

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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
CitedLowick Rose Llp v Swynson Ltd and Another SC 11-Apr-2017
Losses arose from the misvaluation of a company before its purchase. The respondent had funded the purchase, relying upon a valuation by the predecessor of the appellant firm of accountants. Further advances had been made when the true situation was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Construction

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.79806

Balfour Beatty Civil Engineering Ltd and Another v Astec Projects Ltd: TCC 27 Feb 2020

Application for an injunction, on Twintec or Twintec-analogous principles, to restrain three adjudications which the Defendant sub-contractor (‘Astec’) seeks to bring, in respect of the three sub-contracts it had with the Claimant main contractor

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 796 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.650152

Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd: CA 27 Apr 2007

The court construed an agreement supplemental to a construction contract.

Judges:

May LJ, Dyson LJ, Smith LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 443

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoCleveland Bridge UK Ltd v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd TCC 31-Aug-2005
A third party television company sought access to the particulars of claim and other pleadings.
Held: HH Judge Wilcox said: ‘There can be no legitimate distinction drawn between decisions made in interlocutory proceedings and those at final . .
See AlsoMultiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd TCC 5-Jun-2006
. .
See AlsoMultiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another CA 20-Dec-2006
. .
See AlsoMultiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd (No. 2) TCC 31-Jan-2007
. .
See AlsoMultiplex Construction (Uk) Ltd v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd TCC 8-Feb-2007
Application for permission to appeal. Jackson J considered whether permission to appeal should have been requested at the hearing: ‘It seems to me that I have got to interpret the provisions of Rule 52.3 and the provisions of the Practice Direction . .
See AlsoMultiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd (No. 2) TCC 6-Mar-2007
. .
See AlsoMultiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd (No 3) TCC 12-Mar-2007
. .

Cited by:

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

Construction, Contract

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.252381

Henry Boot Construction v Malmaison Hotel (Manchester) Ltd: TCC 1999

Judges:

HHJ Dyson

Citations:

(1999) 70 Con LR 32

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

QuestionedBalfour 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 . .

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 . .
Appeal fromHenry Boot Construction (UK) Limited v Malmaison Hotel (Manchester) Limited CA 25-May-2000
Where a party appealed against an arbitration to the County or High Court, the court which gave judgment was the sole body able to give permission to enter an appeal under the Act. An appellate court did not have jurisdiction to give leave to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Arbitration

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.235380

Harvey Shopfitters Ltd v ADI Ltd: CA 13 Nov 2003

The court dismissed the claimants appeal, but discussed the need now for the parties to file core bundles at least one week before the hearing. Additional agreed bundles of authorities should have the appropriate passages clearly marked and filed within the same time scale. Failures to abide by these requirements will be dealt great disfavour.

Judges:

Dame E Butler Sloss, President, Brooke, Latham LJJ

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1757, Times 26-Nov-2003, Gazette 02-Jan-2004

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 5.6 5.7 5.8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedHaggis v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 7-Oct-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.188480

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Blom-Cooper: CA 4 Apr 2003

The taxpayer appealed a decision that a conversion of a non-residential part of a building used for business and residential purposes was not exempt from VAT.
Held: The building was not within the definition of a self contained residential building. If separate parts could be buildings, no part would satisfy the definition of a building designed as a building. Appeal dismissed.

Judges:

Potter, Chadwick LJJ, Black J

Citations:

Times 15-May-2003, Gazette 12-Jun-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 493, [2003] STC 669, [2003] BVC 415, [2003] 20 EG 148, [2003] BTC 5359
[2003] STI 587

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Value Added Tax Act 1994 35(1D) SCh8 Grp 5 Note 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appealed toCommissioners of Customs and Excise v Blom-Cooper ChD 12-Jul-2002
The tax payer had converted a building which had had both residential and business uses into residential use, and sought to reclaim the input tax on that part of the expenditure attributable to the residential part. The Commissioners appealed.
CitedRevenue and Customs v Jacobs CA 22-Jul-2005
The taxpayer had converted a former residentional boarding school into a substantial private residence. He had sought to claim over andpound;300,000 VAT inputs. The Commissioners appealed the finding that he was so entitled.
Held: ‘works . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Construction

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.182402

Lovell Projects Ltd v Legg and Carver: 2003

The court was asked whether the regulations applied to a construction contract.

Judges:

Judge Moseley QC

Citations:

[2003] BLR 452

Statutes:

Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts 1992

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedDomsalla (T/A Domsalla Building Services) v Dyason TCC 4-May-2007
A consumer has no grounds for complaining about the construction adjudication process per se under the Regulations . .
CitedShaw and Another v Massey Foundation and Pilings Ltd TCC 12-Mar-2009
The appellants had argued that they were not subject to the construction arbitration system because they were residential occupiers. They now said that as consumers vis a vis the construction contract. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Consumer

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.326091

P C Harrington Contractors Ltd v Co Partnership Developments Ltd: CA 2 Apr 1998

An employer holding sums in a retention fund, and which sums were due to insolvent managing contractor in fact held the sums on trust for the contractors who were due to receive eventual payment.

Judges:

Stuart-Smith, Morritt, Robert Walker LJJ

Citations:

Times 30-Apr-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 606

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction, Insolvency

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.144084

Murray and Another v Neil Dowlman Architecture Ltd: TCC 16 Apr 2013

Coulson J discussed the sorts of case when the ordinary orders for costs was appropriate: ‘In my view, in an ordinary case, it will be extremely difficult to persuade a court that inadequacies or mistakes in the preparation of a costs budget, which is then approved by the court, should be subsequently revised or rectified, for the reasons given by Mr Wygas. The courts will expect parties to undertake the costs budgeting exercise properly first time around, and will be slow to revise approved budgets merely because, after the event, it is said that particular items had been omitted or under-valued. I also agree that any other approach could make a nonsense of the whole costs management regime.’

Judges:

Coulson J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 872 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Construction

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472604

Refit Shopfitting Services Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 2 Jan 2013

FTTTx INCOME TAX – construction industry scheme – deductions from payments to subcontractors – travel and other expenses included in subcontractor invoices – obligation to deduct tax from such payments – determination to recover underdeductions from the Appellant under Regulation 13 Income Tax (Construction Industry Scheme) Regulations 2005 – HMRC refusing to make a direction under Regulation 9(5) of those Regulations absolving the Appellant from liability to pay the shortfall to HMRC – whether Appellant took reasonable care to comply with section 61 Finance Act 2004 and those Regulations

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 42 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Income Tax, Construction

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472309

Heifer International Ltd v Christiansen and Another: TCC 9 Apr 2013

The court was asked whether a charging order placed on the Claimant’s property in Surrey should be discharged. The real issue is whether or not the debt, which related to a costs order made against the Claimant, has been or is to be considered as having been discharged.

Judges:

Akenhead J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 721 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See AlsoHeifer International Inc v Christiansen TCC 18-Dec-2007
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Construction

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472253

Kingston Upon Hull City Council v Bogdal: CA 24 Feb 1998

The applicant had been involved in the construction of what was to be a nursing home. In the course of construction, it was inspected, and works were required and undertaken by the local authority. He sold on the property, but the authority now sought to recover the costs from him.
Held: The statutory scheme did not envisage any apportionment with a subsequent purchaser. Leave to appeal refused.

Citations:

[1998] EWCA Civ 331

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.143809

Catchpole v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 13 Apr 2012

Value Added Tax – Claim for the refund of input VAT by the self-builder of a dwelling – whether the entitlement to refund was denied because the dwelling was constructed as two quite separate buildings, albeit that they were designed to operate as one dwelling – Appeal allowed

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 309 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Construction

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.462654

Smith v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 22 Nov 2012

FTTTx VAT – Do it yourself builders scheme – residential conversion – whether the existing building was non-residential – no – garage and extension to existing dwelling – Appeal dismissed – s 35(1) VAT Act 1994

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 713 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

VAT Act 1994 35(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Construction

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.466648

Mellowes 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’.

Judges:

Hobhouse LJ, Buxton LJ

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 2491, [1997] 87 BLR 26

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Construction, Equity

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.142889

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham v Stamford Asphalt Company Limited and Others: CA 20 Mar 1997

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 1293, (1997) 82 BLR 25

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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.

Construction

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.141689

Alstom Power Ltd v SOMI Impianti Srl: TCC 8 Oct 2012

Alstom Power Ltd sought summary judgement both to enforce an adjudicator’s decision and for declarations as to the ownership of certain assets. Issues arise about deemed ownership of equipment and the extent if at all that title actually passes for ever to the main contractor from the sub-contractor.

Judges:

Akenead

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 2644 (TCC), [2012] BLR 585, 145 Con LR 17

Links:

Bailii

Construction

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.465191

A Straume (UK) Ltd v Bradlor Developments Ltd: ChD 29 Jun 1999

An adjudication of a building dispute under the Insolvency Act, was ‘other proceedings’ within the Act, and therefore before such steps were taken against a company in administration, the applicant had first to obtain leave from the court.

Citations:

Times 29-Jun-1999

Statutes:

Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, Insolvency Act 1986 11(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.77591

Commissioners for Customs and Excise v Marchday Holdings Limited: CA 11 Dec 1996

Extensive work on an existing building may be more than a conversion and therefore may be zero-rated.

Citations:

Times 20-Dec-1996, Gazette 29-Jan-1997, [1996] EWCA Civ 1171

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Value Added Tax Act 1983 Grp 8 Sch 5 Note 1A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromCustoms and Excise Commissioners v Marchday Holdings Ltd QBD 31-Jul-1995
A before and after test is to be used to see whether a work is a new building or a conversion of an old building. . .

Cited by:

Appealed toCustoms and Excise Commissioners v Marchday Holdings Ltd QBD 31-Jul-1995
A before and after test is to be used to see whether a work is a new building or a conversion of an old building. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Construction

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.141039

Flood v Shand Construction Limited; Morrison Shand Construction Limited and Morrison Construction Limited: CA 18 Dec 1996

A clause limiting an assignment to sums due and payable did not include the costs of investigation.

Citations:

Times 08-Jan-1997, [1996] EWCA Civ 1241

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See AlsoFloods of Queensferry Limited v Shand Construction Limited, Morrison Shand Limited, Morrison Construction Limited QBD 13-Feb-1997
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Contract

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.80610

Beck Interiors Ltd v UK Flooring Contrcators Ltd: TCC 4 Jul 2012

Adjudication enforcement raising issues, the first being whether all or part of a dispute or disputes had crystallised before the adjudication was commenced and the second being whether part of the adjudicator’s decision can be severed leaving the rest to be enforced.

Judges:

Akenhead J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1808 (TCC), [2012] BLR 417

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction, Arbitration

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.463091