Category: Construction

Lebreh Limited and Finbrook Investments Limited v Laganside Corporation: NIHC 7 Sep 2001

The tenant sought declarations that the landlord had unreasonably withheld its consent to merger of two leases, and works of alteration. The leases related to a building development. The landlord sought a premium for the consent. There is no statutory provision applying to the consents required in this case. It is established that the landlord should not use the withholding of consent to achieve a collateral advantage. The landlord established a commercial detriment from the proposed development, and accordingly the declaration was refused.
[2001] NIEHC 64
Bailii
Conveyancing Act and the Property Act 1892, Business Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 1996
Northern Ireland

Updated: 18 September 2021; Ref: scu.166463

Eco World – Ballymore Embassy Gardens Company Ltd v Dobler Uk Ltd: TCC 3 Aug 2021

Part 8 claim for declarations as to the proper construction and effect of the liquidated damages provisions in a construction contract entered into between the Claimant and the Defendant, in circumstances where EWB has taken over part of the works as completed.
Mrs Justice O’Farrell
[2021] EWHC 2207 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 15 September 2021; Ref: scu.667733

Bouygues (UK) Ltd v Dahl-Jensen (UK) Ltd: CA 31 Jul 2000

Reference to adjudication of differences arising during a construction contract, under the procedure envisaged by section 108 of the Housing Grants and Reconstruction Act 1996.
Peter Gibson, Chadwick, Buxton LJJ
[2000] EWCA Civ 507, [2001] 1 All ER (Comm) 1041, [2001] CLC 927, [2001] 73 Con LR 135, (2001) 3 TCLR 2, [2000] BLR 522, [2001] 1 All ER 1041
Bailii
Housing Grants and Reconstruction Act 1996 108
England and Wales

Updated: 14 September 2021; Ref: scu.276312

Homer Burgess Ltd v Chirex (Annan) Ltd: OHCS 25 Jan 2000

Although an adjudicator’s decision would normally be binding on the parties pending an appeal, that was not the case where the mistake alleged was as to his jurisdiction. In such cases the decision was reviewable, and was ineffective as a decision under the Act.
163696
Times 25-Jan-2000, [1999] ScotCS 264
Bailii
Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 108
Scotland
Citing:
Cited – Yarmouth v France CA 11-Aug-1887
The plaintiff was employed by the defendant to drive carts. He objected that the horse had a vicious nature, but was obliged to drive it in any event. The horse kicked him.
Held: For the purposes of the 1880 Act, the plaintiff was an employee, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 September 2021; Ref: scu.81458

Metropole (Folkstone) Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 4 Dec 2006

VDT Works of alteration of a listed building – Group 6 Schedule 8 VATA 1994 – the replacement of a demolished stone balcony with one built in modern materials and with additional structural features including new steel props – were these works of alteration which were excluded from zero rating because they were works of repair or maintenance – held yes.
[2006] UKVAT V19917
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 14 September 2021; Ref: scu.247555

The Front Door (UK) Ltd (T/A Richard Reid Associates) v The Lower Mill Estate Ltd: TCC 17 Aug 2021

Application by the Claimant to join the three proposed defendants to the claim and an application to amend the Particulars of Claim in the form of an updated draft. The applications are opposed on the grounds that the claims have no real prospect of success, arguably the claims are statute-barred and they are inadequately particularised.
Mrs Justice O’Farrell
[2021] EWHC 2324 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 08 September 2021; Ref: scu.667734

Orkney Islands Council for Suspension and Interdict: ScHC 21 Sep 2001

A contract for works contained an arbitration clause, which, following a dispute was invoked. The council sought an interdict against the appointment of an arbiter on the grounds that any dispute was now time barred, and that the dispute was not of a nature to found a reference. The defenders said there had been an interruption of the running of time in the dispute. The arbiter could himself decide if the dispute was time barred, and also whether there was a dispute capable of arbitration. Interim interdict refused.
[2001] ScotHC 105
Bailii
Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 6
Scotland

Updated: 03 September 2021; Ref: scu.166520

Discain Project Services Ltd v Opecrime Development Ltd: TCC 1 Aug 2000

The applicant sought leave to defend the enforcement of an arbitration award.
Held: The adjudicator had accepted oral and written communications with one party, from which the other party was excluded. This was such a serious breach of the rules of natural justice, that the court ought not to give summary judgment enforcing the award. Leave to defend given: ‘the adjudicator has to conduct the proceedings in accordance with the rules of natural justice or as fairly as the limitations imposed by Parliament permit’.
Honour Judge Bowsher QC
[2000] BLR 402
England and Wales
Cited by:
Leave to defend – Discain Project Services Ltd v Opecrime Development Ltd TCC 11-Apr-2001
. .
Cited – Carillion 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 . .
Cited – Carillion 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. . .
See Also – Discain Project Services Limited v Opecprime Developments Limited TCC 11-Dec-2001
. .
See Also – Discain Project Services Ltd v Opecprime Developments Ltd (2) TCC 11-Dec-2001
This was a dispute between contractors. D had been engaged to install balconies on flats constructed by O. Targets were set, but there were difficulties in obtaining supplies. Continued negotiations confused the situation. Eventually the contract . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 August 2021; Ref: scu.235378

Ruxley 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 end. Later Mr Forsyth wanted the depth increased to 7ft 6in. He had a conversation with Mr Hall, who owned or controlled the plaintiff company. Mr Hall agreed to increase the depth without extra charge, but built it to the original specification.
Held: The damages payable for the incorrect building of a swimming pool may be the cost of rebuilding it according to correct specification.
Dillon LJ, dissented, saying: ‘If the evidence had been that the value of the pool as constructed was less than the value of a pool with a depth of 7 ft 6 in as contracted for, but that the loss of value was substantially less than the andpound;21,560 cost of reinstatement, then, given the finding that the pool as constructed is still deep enough to be perfectly safe to dive into, the obvious course would have been to award Mr Forsyth the loss of value. The basis of that would have been reasonableness. He has no absolute right to be awarded the cost of reinstatement. I see no reason, therefore, why if there has been no loss in value, he should automatically become entitled to the cost of reinstatement, however high. That would be a wholly unreasonable conclusion in law. Accordingly, I agree with the judge’s approach and would dismiss this appeal.’
Staughton LJ held that Mr Forsyth was entitled to the cost of reinstatement, however expensive, since there was no other way of giving him what he had contracted for. While reasonableness lies at the heart of the rule that a plaintiff must mitigate his damage, it plays no part at all where there is no cheaper remedy available for the defendant’s breach of contract: ‘What money will place him ‘in the same situation . . as if the contract had been performed?’ The answer, on the facts of this case, is the cost of replacing the pool. Otherwise, a builder of swimming pools need never perform his contract. He can always argue that 5 ft in depth is enough for diving, even if the purchaser has stipulated for 6, 7 or 8 ft, and pay no damages. In my judgment the key lies in the proposition of Oliver J that reasonableness is a matter of mitigation. It is unreasonable of a plaintiff to claim an expensive remedy if there is some cheaper alternative which would make good his loss. Thus he cannot claim the cost of reinstatement if the difference in value would make good his loss by enabling him to purchase the building or chattel that he requires elsewhere. But if there is no alternative course which will provide what he requires, or none which will cost less, he is entitled to the cost of repair or reinstatement even if that is very expensive . . Since there is no other alternative which will provide that which he has contracted for, he is entitled to incur that expense and charge it to the defendant.’
It was irrelevant that Mr Forsyth did not intend to rebuild the pool. What a plaintiff does with his damages is no concern to the defendant.
Mann LJ accepted that there may be cases where it would be unreasonable to award the cost of rectifying a failed project. But this was not such a case, because the bargain was for what Mann LJ called ‘a personal preference’. Although the value of the pool was the same, as found by the judge, Mr Forsyth was entitled to have his personal preference satisfied. The only way that could be done was by rebuilding the pool. Since the majority of the court awarded the full cost of reinstatement, they set aside the judge’s award of andpound;2,500 general damages for loss of amenity.
Mann LJ, Dillon LJ, Staughton LJ
Gazette 16-Feb-1994, Times 07-Jan-1994, [1994] 3 All ER 801, [1994] 1 WLR 650
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth HL 29-Jun-1995
Damages on Construction not as Agreed
The appellant had contracted to build a swimming pool for the respondent, but, after agreeing to alter the specification to construct it to a certain depth, in fact built it to the original lesser depth, Damages had been awarded to the house owner . .
Cited – Hunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd HL 25-Apr-1997
The claimant, in a representative action complained that the works involved in the erection of the Canary Wharf tower constituted a nuisance in that the works created substantial clouds of dust and the building blocked her TV signals, so as to limit . .
Cited – 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 August 2021; Ref: scu.88940

Morris v Jones and others: CA 6 Dec 2002

Lord Justice Clarke, Lord Justice Ward, Sir Anthony Evans
[2002] EWCA Civ 1790, [2002] All ER (D) 82, [2001] EMLR 800
Bailii
Defective Premises Act 1972
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Edgington v Fitzmaurice CA 7-Mar-1885
False Prospectus – Issuers liable in Deceit
The directors of a company issued a prospectus, falsely stating that the proceeds were to be used to complete alterations to the buildings of the company, to purchase horses and vans and to develop the trade of the company. In fact it was to pay off . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 August 2021; Ref: scu.178459

Bannister Combined Services v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 12 Apr 2010

FTTTx Gross payment scheme for construction industry – decision to withdraw gross payment status from Appellant for failure of compliance condition – Appellant a partnership – partners defaulted in relation to self assessment obligations – Appellant suffered cash flow difficulties because of late payment by main customers over a number of years – pattern of paying self assessment by instalments – did this pattern of payment amount to an informal arrangement giving Appellant a reasonable excuse for FA 2004 purposes – in the circumstances yes – appeal allowed
[2010] UKFTT 158 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 09 August 2021; Ref: scu.422164

Roads v Central Trains Ltd: CA 5 Nov 2004

The court considered the meaning of the ‘duty to provide a reasonable alternative method’.
Held: The policy of the 1995 Act was to provide access to a service as close as it was reasonable possible to get to the standard offered to the public at large, and so far as reasonable practicable to approximate the access enjoyed by disabled persons to that enjoyed by the rest of the public.
The defendant train company was found to have failed to comply with its reasonable adjustments duty in not making arrangements for a free taxi, so that wheelchair users – who could not use the footbridge nor reasonably navigate the half-mile detour along Station Lane – could access eastbound trains from Thetford, rather than the alternative relied on by the train company (a 60 minute-plus train journey west to Ely to change platforms there and travel back eastwards).
Buxton LJ said: ‘Steps might be unreasonable for a person to take if they unreasonably impact on third parties.’
Sedley, Buxton, Jacob LJJ
[2004] EWCA Civ 1541, (2005) 21 Const LJ 456, (2004) 104 Con LR 62
Bailii
Disability Discrimination Act 1995
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Ross v Ryanair Ltd and Another CA 21-Dec-2004
The claimant said that the airline and airport had failed to provide proper access arrangements for him as a disabled person. No wheelchair had been provided to transfer him through the airport to the airplane.
Held: It was the duty of both . .
Cited – Firstgroup Plc v Paulley CA 8-Dec-2014
The claimant a wheelchair user had been unable to travel on a bus when a mother had left her sleeping child in a pushchair. The mother said she was unable to fold down the pushchair, and would not move the child. The claimant said that the driver . .
Cited – Rowley, Regina (on The Application of) v Minister for The Cabinet Office Admn 28-Jul-2021
Failure to Provide Signers was Discriminatory
The claimant challenged the failure of the respondent to provide sign language interpreters to accompany public service broadcasts during the Covid pandemic. The parties agreed that the steps taken for later broadcasts had satisfied the . .
Cited – Firstgroup Plc v Paulley SC 18-Jan-2017
The claimant wheelchair user alleged discrimination by the bus company. The space reserved for wheelchair users on a bus had been wrongly occupied by a passenger who refused to vacate the space. The claimant said that the bus driver should have . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 August 2021; Ref: scu.220294

Shaw (Inspector of Taxes) v Vicky Construction Ltd: ChD 6 Dec 2002

The General Commissioner had held that an inspector’s refusal to renew a certificate allowing the taxpayer construction company to pay its sub-contractors without deducting income tax, infringed that company’s rights. The inspector appealed.
Held: The certificate itself would be a possession within the Convention, but the right to have it re-issued was not such a right in property. The requirement to deduct sums for tax did deprive the sub-contractors of a possession. However a state enjoys a wide margin of appreciation in taxation matters. An interference with property to ensure payment of tax could be justified. The provisions were not arbitrary or excessive, and need not be read down to make them compliant. The decision of the general commissioners was wrong and was set aside.
Ferris J said: ‘It became notorious during the latter part of last century that many sub-contractors engaged in the construction industry disappeared without settling their tax liabilities with a consequential loss of revenue to the Exchequer. In order to remedy that abuse Parliament enacted legislation going back to the early 1970s under which a contractor is obliged except in the case of a sub-contractor who holds a relevant certificate to deduct and pay over to the Revenue a proportion of all payments made to the sub-contractor in respect of the labour content of any sub-contract. The amount so deducted and paid over is in due course allowed as a credit against the sub-contractors liability to the Revenue. The need to make and pay over such deductions can be an irritation to the contractor obliged to carry out this exercise. It also adversely effects the cash flow of the sub-contractor. Accordingly it is advantageous to a sub-contractor to have a statutory certificate rendering such a deduction unnecessary. The provision of such a certificate tends to make the sub-contractor holding the certificate a more attractive party for the contractor to deal with and by enabling the sub-contractor to receive the contract price without deduction improves the sub-contractor’s case flow.
The legislation which governs the present regime is now contained in sections 559 to 567 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. The basic requirement is imposed by section 559. It imposes the general requirement on a contractor to make deductions from payments made to a sub-contractor and to pay over to the Revenue the amounts deducted. The current percentage required to be deducted is 18 per cent. The section also prescribes how such amounts are to be treated in the hands of the Revenue.
Section 561 provides an exception from the requirements of section 559. In the case of a payment made to a sub-contractor who holds a certificate under section 561 which is in force when the payment is made the issue of such a certificate is governed by section 561 itself. In order to be entitled to the grant of a certificate the taxpayer must satisfy certain conditions. In the case of a company the conditions are those set out in section 565.’
Ferris J
Times 27-Dec-2002, [2002] EWHC 2659 (Ch), [2002] STC 1544
Bailii
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 561 565, European Convention on Human Rights
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Tom Hudson (HM Inspector of Taxes) v JDC Services Limited ChD 26-Mar-2004
The taxpayer company had been refused a statutory Construction Industry Scheme certificate. The General Commissioners allowed the company’s appeal and itself issued a certificate. The revenue said the Commissioners had no jurisdiction either to hear . .
Cited – HM Inspector of Taxes v CBL Cable Contractors Ltd ChD 23-Jun-2005
. .
Cited – JP Whitter (Water Well Engineers) Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 13-Jun-2018
The taxpayers registration under the Construction Industry Scheme had been withdrawn. The Court was now asked whether HMRC are obliged, or at least entitled, to take into account the impact on the taxpayer’s business of the cancellation of its . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 July 2021; Ref: scu.178617

J P Whitter (Waterwell Engineers) Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 18 Oct 2012

FTTTxp INCOME TAX – construction industry scheme – cancellation of gross payment status – s66 Finance Act 2004 – HMRC discretion – whether properly exercised – Failure to take into account effect of cancellation on appellant – Barnes v Hilton Main Construction considered and distinguished – appeal allowed
Cannan TJ
[2012] UKFTT 639 (TC)
Bailii
Income Tax (Construction Industry Scheme) Regulations 2005, Finance Act 2004
England and Wales
Cited by:
Applied – John Kerr Roofing Contractors v The Commissioners for Revenue and Customs FTTTx 20-Feb-2013
FTTTX INCOME TAX – Construction Industry Scheme – Appeal against cancellation of registration for gross payment – ‘Compliance test’ – Whether there was a reasonable excuse on the facts – No – Failure to take . .
At FTTTx – Revenue and Customs v J P Whitter (Water Well Engineers) Ltd UTTC 13-Jul-2015
UTTC INCOME TAX – construction industry scheme – cancellation of gross payment status – s 66 Finance Act 2004 – HMRC discretion – scope of – whether properly exercised – failure to take into account effect of . .
At FTTTx – J P Whitter (Waterwell Engineers) Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs CA 24-Nov-2016
Important point of principle concerning the power of HMRC, to cancel the registration of a taxpayer for gross payment under the legislation which governs the Construction Industry Scheme. . .
At FTTTx – JP Whitter (Water Well Engineers) Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 13-Jun-2018
The taxpayers registration under the Construction Industry Scheme had been withdrawn. The Court was now asked whether HMRC are obliged, or at least entitled, to take into account the impact on the taxpayer’s business of the cancellation of its . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 July 2021; Ref: scu.466215

J P Whitter (Waterwell Engineers) Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs: CA 24 Nov 2016

Important point of principle concerning the power of HMRC, to cancel the registration of a taxpayer for gross payment under the legislation which governs the Construction Industry Scheme.
Jackson, Christopher Clarke, Henderson LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 1160, [2016] WLR(D) 630, [2016] STI 3058, [2016] BTC 45, [2017] STC 149
Bailii, WLRD
Finance Act 2004, Income Tax (Construction Industry Scheme) Regulations 2005
England and Wales
Citing:
At FTTTx – J P Whitter (Waterwell Engineers) Ltd v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 18-Oct-2012
FTTTxp INCOME TAX – construction industry scheme – cancellation of gross payment status – s66 Finance Act 2004 – HMRC discretion – whether properly exercised – Failure to take into account effect of cancellation . .
At UTTC – Revenue and Customs v J P Whitter (Water Well Engineers) Ltd UTTC 13-Jul-2015
UTTC INCOME TAX – construction industry scheme – cancellation of gross payment status – s 66 Finance Act 2004 – HMRC discretion – scope of – whether properly exercised – failure to take into account effect of . .

Cited by:
At CA – JP Whitter (Water Well Engineers) Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 13-Jun-2018
The taxpayers registration under the Construction Industry Scheme had been withdrawn. The Court was now asked whether HMRC are obliged, or at least entitled, to take into account the impact on the taxpayer’s business of the cancellation of its . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 July 2021; Ref: scu.571935

Barnes (HMIT) v Hilton Main Construction: ChD 15 Apr 2005

The revenue had refused to renew the respondent’s certificate, and now itself appealed against the contractor’ success on appeal to the General Commissioners.
Lewison J
[2005] EWHC 1355 (Ch), [2005] STC 1532
Bailii
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 565
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – JP Whitter (Water Well Engineers) Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 13-Jun-2018
The taxpayers registration under the Construction Industry Scheme had been withdrawn. The Court was now asked whether HMRC are obliged, or at least entitled, to take into account the impact on the taxpayer’s business of the cancellation of its . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 July 2021; Ref: scu.403329

Revenue and Customs v J P Whitter (Water Well Engineers) Ltd: UTTC 13 Jul 2015

UTTC INCOME TAX – construction industry scheme – cancellation of gross payment status – s 66 Finance Act 2004 – HMRC discretion – scope of – whether properly exercised – failure to take into account effect of cancellation on appellant – appeal allowed
[2015] UKUT 392 (TCC), [2015] BTC 524, [2016] STC 204, [2015] STI 2555
Bailii
Finance Act 2004, Income Tax (Construction Industry Scheme) Regulations 2005
England and Wales
Citing:
At FTTTx – J P Whitter (Waterwell Engineers) Ltd v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 18-Oct-2012
FTTTxp INCOME TAX – construction industry scheme – cancellation of gross payment status – s66 Finance Act 2004 – HMRC discretion – whether properly exercised – Failure to take into account effect of cancellation . .

Cited by:
At UTTC – J P Whitter (Waterwell Engineers) Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs CA 24-Nov-2016
Important point of principle concerning the power of HMRC, to cancel the registration of a taxpayer for gross payment under the legislation which governs the Construction Industry Scheme. . .
At UTTC – JP Whitter (Water Well Engineers) Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 13-Jun-2018
The taxpayers registration under the Construction Industry Scheme had been withdrawn. The Court was now asked whether HMRC are obliged, or at least entitled, to take into account the impact on the taxpayer’s business of the cancellation of its . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 July 2021; Ref: scu.553192

Floods of Queensferry Limited v Shand Construction Limited, Morrison Shand Limited, Morrison Construction Limited: QBD 13 Feb 1997

[1997] EWHC QB 373
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – 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. . .

Cited by:
See Also – Floods of Queensferry Ltd, David Charles Flood v Shand Constructions Ltd, Morrison Shand Constructions Ltd, Morrison Construction Ltd TCC 17-Dec-1999
The claimant alleged that it had entered into a sub-contract relying upon misrepresentations made by the defendant, SCL that it was the main contractor, and that it was still trading. The defendant company operated through associated companies for . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 July 2021; Ref: scu.135928

HM Revenue and Customs v Bosher: UTTC 19 Nov 2013

UTTC CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY SCHEME – fixed and month 13 penalties -late filing of returns – no reasonable excuse – proportionality of penalties – whether within wide margin of appreciation – interpretation of s 100B Taxes Management Act 1970 – Human Rights Act 1998 – appeal allowed’
[2013] UKUT 579 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 16 July 2021; Ref: scu.521024

Atwal and Another v Rochester: TCC 9 Jul 2010

The claimants had engaged the defendant to carry out building works. He became ill part way through and the works were not completed. They now said he was in repudiatory breach of the contract. The defendant said that the contract was frustrated, and sought payment of a fair sum under the 1943 Act.
Held: The defendant had been selected by the claimants because they knew him personally, and his services were extraordinarily inexpensive. They knew that he worked entirley alone. This was a personal contract. His serious illness could not be properly described as a default. Though such a contract might allow some sub-contracting. His personal supervision however remained to be provided, and therefore his illness worked to frustrate the contract, and the defendant was entitled to payment of a just sum for the work he had already undertaken.
Kirkham J
[2010] EWHC 2338 (TCC)
Bailii
Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 1(3)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Condor v Baron Knights 1966
The plaintiff had contracted with the defendants, but became ill and was unable to complete the contract.
Held: His defence of frustration succeeded. . .
Cited – Notcutt v Universal Equipment Company (London) Ltd CA 14-Mar-1986
The Court was asked to consider the application of the doctrine of frustration to a periodic contract of employment, which is determinable by short or relatively short notice where the contract is said to have been frustrated by the illness or . .
Cited – Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham Urban District Council HL 19-Apr-1956
Effect of Contract Frustration
The defendant appellants contended that their construction contract was frustrated because adequate supplies of labour were not available to it because of the war.
Held: The court considered how the frustration of the performance of a contract . .
Cited – Notcutt v Universal Equipment Company (London) Ltd CA 14-Mar-1986
The Court was asked to consider the application of the doctrine of frustration to a periodic contract of employment, which is determinable by short or relatively short notice where the contract is said to have been frustrated by the illness or . .
Cited – Alan Auld Associates Ltd v Rick Pollard Associates and Another CA 15-May-2008
. .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 July 2021; Ref: scu.424984

Eynsham Cricket Club v Revenue and Customs: CA 23 Feb 2021

‘whether supplies of construction services in the course of building a new cricket pavilion to a ‘community amateur sports club’ such as Eynsham Cricket Club qualified for zero-rating for the purposes of value added tax pursuant to Item 2, Group 5, Schedule 8 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994′
Lady Justice Simler
[2021] EWCA Civ 225, [2021] 1 WLR 3220
Bailii, Judiciary
England and Wales

Updated: 01 July 2021; Ref: scu.658878

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham v Stamford Asphalt Company Limited v General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Plc v Martin Daniels: CA 20 Mar 1997

[1997] EWCA Civ 1293
Bailii
Citing:
Cited – Mark 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 December 2020; Ref: scu.141689

Sahib Foods Limited (In Liquidation) v Paskin Kyriakides Sands (A Firm): CA 19 Dec 2003

References: [2003] EWCA Civ 1832, [2003] EWCA Civ 1920
Links: Bailii, Bailii
Judges: Lord Justice Clarke Lord Justice Potter Lord Justice Ward
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 25 October 2020; Ref: scu.189917

Aspect Contracts (Asbestos) Ltd v Higgins Construction Plc: CA 29 Nov 2013

The appeal succeeded. The Scheme implied that any overpayment could be recovered.
References: [2013] EWCA Civ 1541, 151 Con LR 72, [2013] WLR(D) 463, [2014] BLR 79, [2014] 1 WLR 1220, [2013] 2 CLC 1019, [2014] CILL 3449, [2014] Bus LR 367, [2013] 49 EG 77
Links: Bailii
Judges: Longmore, Rimer, Tomlinson LJJ
Statutes: Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 108(5), Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:

This case is cited by:

  • Appeal from – Aspect Contracts (Asbetos) Ltd v Higgins Construction Plc SC 17-Jun-2015 (, [2015] UKSC 38, [2015] 4 All ER 482, [2015] WLR(D) 261, 160 Con LR 28, [2015] BLR 503, [2015] 1 WLR 2961, [2015] 2 All ER (Comm) 965, [2015] Bus LR 830, , , UKSC 2014/0021, , , )
    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 . .
  • Cited – Aspect Contracts (Asbetos) Ltd v Higgins Construction Plc SC 17-Jun-2015 (, [2015] UKSC 38, [2015] 4 All ER 482, [2015] WLR(D) 261, 160 Con LR 28, [2015] BLR 503, [2015] 1 WLR 2961, [2015] 2 All ER (Comm) 965, [2015] Bus LR 830, , , UKSC 2014/0021, , , )
    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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 23 September 2020; Ref: scu.518494

Kew Holdings Ltd v Donald Insall Associates Ltd: TCC 15 Jul 2020

Defendant’s applications for: i) an order striking out the claim for non-compliance with the order dated 5 February 2019; ii) alternatively, a stay of proceedings pending the Claimant’s payment in satisfaction of the judgment dated 5 February 2019; and iii) an order for security for costs.
References: [2020] EWHC 1862 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Mrs Justice O’Farrell
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 21 September 2020; Ref: scu.653344

McGruther (Liquidator of Apollo Engineering Limited) v Blin, Former Liquidator of Apollo Engineering Limited James Scott Limited: OHCS 23 Dec 2003

Links: ScotC
Coram: Lord Hamilton And Lord Mccluskey And Lord Weir
Ratio:
This case cites:

(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 07 March 2017
Ref: 190788

Kirkby v Hughes; Chd 22 Feb 1993

References: Ind Summary 22-Feb-1993, (1993) 65 TC 532
Ratio: Income tax was payable under Schedule D on the sale of a builder’s own house. He was shown to have been, in effect, trading taking into account his past record, and doubts about his intention ever to occupy the house as his residence. Some element of permanent residence was required to apply for relief.
Statutes: Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Longson v HM Inspector of Taxes CA (Bailii, [2001] EWCA Civ 364)
    The taxpayer disposed of his farmhouse, and sought exemption from Capital Gains Tax under sections 101 and 102 of the 1989 Act. The Revenue said it had not been his only or main residence. Contracts had been exchanged for its purchase in 1983, but . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 31-Aug-16
Ref: 82806

Island Contract Management (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs; UTTC 28 Aug 2015

References: [2015] UKUT 472 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
UTTC Construction Industry Scheme – notices of determination – whether UK contractor obliged to make deductions under the scheme in respect of payments made to its Isle of Man parent company – FA 2004 Sections 57 to 67 – Income Tax (Construction Industry Scheme) Regulations 2005 – appeals dismissed
Last Update: 16-Oct-15 Ref: 553195

HMRC v SL; UTTC 19 Nov 2009

References: [2009] UKUT 244 (TCC), [2010] STC 486, [2010] BVC 1503, [2010] STI 555
Links: Bailii
UTTC ZERO-RATING – alterations to listed building – new building in the curtilage of listed building – planning permission that it ‘shall only be used for purposes either incidental or ancillary to the residential use’ of the main listed building – whether a prohibition on separate use (Note 2(c) VATA 1994 Sched 8 Group 6) – no – appeal allowed

Radford v De Froberville; 2 Jan 1977

References: [1977] 1 WLR 1262
Coram: Oliver J
A contract was made for the sale of a plot of land adjoining a house belonging to the plaintiff (the vendor) but occupied by his tenants, under which the defendant (the purchaser) undertook to build a house on the plot and also to erect a wall to a certain specification on the plot so as to separate it from the plaintiff’s land. The plaintiff obtained judgment against the defendant for damages for breach of contract by reason of her failure to erect the dividing wall, but an issue arose as to the measure of the damages. The defendant having failed to build the dividing wall on the land purchased from the plaintiff, the plaintiff proposed to build a dividing wall on his own land, and claimed the cost of doing so from the defendant; whereas the defendant maintained that the appropriate measure of damages was the consequent diminution in the value of the plaintiff’s property, which was nil.
Held: The court described the distinction made in the Liesbosch between a plaintiff’s capacity to mitigate his loss and his duty to do so: ‘No doubt the measure of damages and the plaintiff’s duty and ability to mitigate are logically distinct concepts (see for instance, the speech of Lord Wright in Liesbosch (Dredger) v SS Edison (Owners) [1933] AC 449, 456-469). But to some extent, at least, they are mirror images . .’ A contracting party should not use the remedy of damages to recover ‘an uncovenanted profit.’ However: ‘If [the plaintiff] contracts for the supply of that which he thinks serves his interests – be they commercial, aesthetic or merely eccentric – then if that which is contracted for is not supplied by the other contracting party I do not see why, in principle, he should not be compensated by being provided with the cost of supplying it through someone else or in a different way, subject to the proviso, of course, that he is seeking compensation for a genuine loss and not merely using a technical breach to secure an uncovenanted profit.’ It was for the plaintiff to judge what performance he required in exchange for the price. The court should honour that choice.
Oliver J said: ‘In the instant case, the plaintiff says in evidence that he wishes to carry out the work on his own land and there are, as it seems to me, three questions that I have to answer. First, am I satisfied on the evidence that the plaintiff has a genuine and serious intention of doing the work? Secondly, is the carrying out of the work on his own land a reasonable thing for the plaintiff to do? Thirdly, does it make any difference that the plaintiff is not personally in occupation of the land but desires to do the work for the benefit of his tenants?’
This case cites:

  • Cited – Liesbosch Dredger (Owners of) -v- Owners of SS Edison, The Liesbosch HL ([1933] AC 449, [1933] All ER Rep 144, [1933] 149 LT 49, Bailii, [1933] UKHL 2)
    The ship Edison fouled the moorings of the Liesbosch resulting in the total loss of the dredger when it sank. It had been engaged on work in the harbour under contract with the harbour board. All the owners’ liquid resources were engaged in the . .
  • Cited – Jackson -v- Horizon Holidays Ltd CA ([1975] 1 WLR 1468, Bailii, [1974] EWCA Civ 12, [1975] 3 All ER 92)
    A family claimed damages for a disappointing holiday. The generous measure of damages given to the father was that the father was being fully compensated for his own mental distress, but the rule of privity of contract operated to bar the claim for . .
  • Cited – Tito -v- Waddell (No 2); Tito -v-Attorney General ChD ([1977] Ch 106, [1977] 3 All ER 129, [1977] 3 WLR 972)
    Equity applies its doctrines to the substance, not the form, of transactions. In respect of the rule against self dealing for trustees ‘But of course equity looks beneath the surface, and applies its doctrines to cases where, although in form a . .

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Lagden -v- O’Connor HL (House of Lords, [2003] UKHL 64, Bailii, Times 05-Dec-03, [2004] 1 AC 1067, [2004] 1 All ER 277, [2003] 3 WLR 1571, [2004] Lloyd’s Rep IR 315, [2004] RTR 24)
    The parties had been involved in a road traffic accident. The defendant drove into the claimant’s parked car. The claimant was unable to afford to hire a car pending repairs being completed, and arranged to hire a car on credit. He now sought . .
  • Approved – Dodd Properties (Kent) Ltd -v- Canterbury City Council CA ([1980] 1 WLR 433, Bailii, [1980] 1 All ER 928, [1979] EWCA Civ 4)
    The defendants had, in the course of building operations, caused nuisance and damage to the plaintiff’s building. The dispute was very lengthy, the costs of repair increased accordingly, and the parties now disputed the date at which damages fell to . .
  • Cited – Alfred Mcalpine Construction Limited -v- Panatown Limited HL (Times 15-Aug-00, House of Lords, Gazette 05-Oct-00, Bailii, [2000] UKHL 43, [2000] 4 All ER 97, [2000] 3 WLR 946, [2001] 1 AC 518)
    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 . .
  • Cited – Golden Strait Corporation -v- Nippon Yusen Kubishka Kaisha (‘The Golden Victory’) HL (Bailii, [2007] UKHL 12, Times 30-Mar-07, [2007] 2 Lloyds Rep 164, [2007] Bus LR 997, [2007] 3 All ER 1, [2007] 2 AC 353, [2007] 1 CLC 352, [2007] 2 WLR 691, [2007] 2 All ER (Comm) 97)
    The claimant sought damages for repudiation of a charterparty. The charterpary had been intended to continue until 2005. The charterer repudiated the contract and that repudiation was accepted, but before the arbitrator could set his award, the Iraq . .
  • Cited – Johnson -v- Agnew HL ([1980] AC 367, [1979] 2 WLR 487, [1979] 1 All ER 883)
    The seller had obtained a summary order for specific performance of a contract for the sale of land against the buyer.
    Held: The breach was continuing and was still capable of being remedied by compliance with the order for specific . .
  • Cited – Alcoa Minerals of Jamaica Inc -v- Herbert Broderick PC (Times 22-Mar-00, Bailii, PC, PC, [2002] 1 AC 371, [2000] UKPC 11, (Appeal No 68 of 1998))
    (Jamaica) Damage had been caused to the claimant’s property, but, because of his lack of funds, he was dependent upon the receipt of the damages to carry out the works of repair necessary. By the time the matter came to trial, inflation meant that . .
  • Cited – Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd -v- Forsyth HL (Independent 12-Jul-95, Gazette 06-Sep-95, Times 03-Jul-95, [1996] 1 AC 344, [1995] 3 WLR 118, Bailii, [1995] UKHL 8, [1995] CLC 905, [1995] 3 All ER 268)
    The appellant had constructed to build a swimming pool for the respondent, but, after agreeing to alter the sepcification to construct it to a certan depth, in fact built it to the original lower depth, Damages had been awarded to the house owner . .

George Fisher Holding Limited (Formerly George Fisher (Great Britain) Limited v Multi Design Consultants Limited, Roofdec Limited, Severfield-Reeve Plc, Davis Langdon and Everest: TCC 6 Apr 1998

References: [1998] EWHC Technology 329
Links: Bailii
This case cites: