Category: Construction

Louis v Sadiq: CA 22 Nov 1996

The defendant neighbour had carried out construction works on a joint structure involving its demolition. He had not complied with the requirements of the 1917 Act.
Held: A neighbour doing work on a party wall without complying with the requirements of the Act was creating a nuisance, and he made himself liable for special damages, including some financial losses. A later award under the Act does not relieve a building owner from liability in nuisance or interference with rights of support for works undertaken before the date of the award, and he could not rely upon a defence in the Act, having later complied with it, to excuse his earlier wrong.

Judges:

Evans LJ

Citations:

Gazette 13-Dec-1996, Times 22-Nov-1996, [1997] 1 EGLR 136

Statutes:

London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Rodrigues v Sokal TCC 30-Jul-2008
The parties owned either half of a semi-detached residence. The defendant had undertaken substantial redevelopment works, and the claimant sought damages under the 1996 Act for his failures to follow that Act. The issues had been taken to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Damages, Construction

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.83220

Amec 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 valid engineer’s decision within the time limit provided.
Held: The court must avoid an over-legalistic approach to interpretation of the contract. The engineer has a duty to act independently honestly and with fairness, but the rules of natural justice as such did not apply to his decision.

Judges:

May, Rix, Hooper, LJJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 291, Times 22-Mar-2005, [2005] 1 WLR 2339, [2005] BLR 227, (2005) 21 Const LJ 640, 101 Con LR 26, [2005] 12 EG 219

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Amec Civil Engineering Ltd v The Secretary of State for Transport TCC 11-Oct-2004
The court affirmed an interim arbitration award as to jurisdiction in an arbitration commenced by the Secretary of State against the contractors in relation to work carried out by them on the Thelwall viaduct. The court identified seven applicable . .
Cited – Tradax International v Cerrahogullari 1981
An express rejection of a claim is not required in every case to generate a dispute allowing a reference to arbitration. . .
Cited – Monmouthshire County Council v Costelloe CA 1965
A question arose under a contract including the ICE conditions as to whether there had historically been claims by the contractor which the Engineer had already determined under clause 66.
Held: There had been no such earlier dispute or . .
Cited – Ellerine Bros v Klinger CA 1982
The court was asked whether there was a dispute sufficient to allow a stay of court proceedings to allow an arbitration to proceed.
Held: If letters were written making some request or demand and the defendant did not reply, there was a . .
Cited – Collins (Contractors) Ltd v Baltic Quay Management (1994) Ltd CA 7-Dec-2004
The claimant sought payment under its invoice for construction works. The contractor gave notice of its intention to withhold payment, and then also sought to refer the matter to arbitration. The claimant said that the notice had prevented the . .
Cited – Halki Shipping Corporation v Sopex Oils Limited CA 19-Dec-1997
The court was aked whether there was a dispute sufficient to sustain a stay of court proceedings for arbitration under the Act.
Held: There was a dispute once money is claimed unless and until the defendants admit that the sum is due and . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – F and G Sykes (Wessex) v Fine Fare Ltd CA 1967
There was an agreement by which the plaintiffs agreed to breed and provide chicks to nominated growers, the number of chicks to be provided to be ‘not less than 30,000 per week nor more than 80,000 per week during the first year of the agreement and . .
Cited – Beaufort Developments (NI) Limited v Gilbert-Ash NI Limited and Others HL 26-Feb-1998
The contractual ability given to an arbitrator under standard JCT terms did not oust the court from assessing and prejudging the acts of the architect under a building contract. As to the means for interpreting documents, Lord Hoffmann said: ‘I . .
Cited – Canterbury Pipe Lines v The Christchurch Drainage Board 1979
(New Zealand Court of Appeal) ‘In Hatrick the term ‘fairness’ was avoided in the judgments, Richmond J saying that he resisted it partly because of its vagueness and partly because it might be regarded as equivalent to natural justice. . . . In our . .
Cited – Hounslow 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 . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Amec Civil Engineering Ltd v The Secretary of State for Transport TCC 11-Oct-2004
The court affirmed an interim arbitration award as to jurisdiction in an arbitration commenced by the Secretary of State against the contractors in relation to work carried out by them on the Thelwall viaduct. The court identified seven applicable . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration, Construction

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.224061

Bellefield Computer Services and others v E Turner and Sons Limited and others: CA 18 Dec 2002

The defendants had carried out works of construction on the premises. They subcontracted the design, but not the supervision, of the works to architects. Years later there was a fire, which spread rapidly because of negligence in the design of a wall intended to restrain any fire. The architects said their duty was limited to responding to the first defendant’s requests for plans, and they did not themselves have responsibility for failures of specification.
Held: The omissions in design were the responsibility of the architects, who owed a duty of care to purchasers of a building as beneficial owners, where they had been involved in the construction, in respect of latent defects in the building of which there is no reasonable possibility of inspection.

Judges:

Lord Justice Potter Lord Justice May Sir Anthony Evans

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1823

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Approved – Baxall Securities Ltd Norbain SDC Ltd v Sheard Walshaw Partnership TCC 30-Oct-2000
. .
Cited – Murphy v Brentwood District Council HL 26-Jul-1990
Anns v Merton Overruled
The claimant appellant was a house owner. He had bought the house from its builders. Those builders had employed civil engineers to design the foundations. That design was negligent. They had submitted the plans to the defendant Council for approval . .
Cited – Moresk Cleaners Ltd v Hicks 1966
If a dangerous defect arises as the result of a negligent omission on the part of an architect, he cannot excuse himself from liability on the grounds that he delegated the duty of design of the relevant part of the building works, unless he obtains . .
Cited – Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd HL 25-Jul-1994
Lloyds Agents Owe Care Duty to Member; no Contract
Managing agents conducted the financial affairs of the Lloyds Names belonging to the syndicates under their charge. It was alleged that they managed these affairs with a lack of due careleading to enormous losses.
Held: The assumption of . .
See Also – Bellefield Computer Services Limited, Unigate Properties Limited; Unigate Dairies Limited; Unigate (Uk) Limited; Unigate Dairies (Western) Limited v E Turner and Sons Limited Admn 28-Jan-2000
The Defendant builders constructed a steel building to be used as, inter alia. a dairy. The original owners sold it to the appellants. A fire spread from the storage area to the rest of the dairy and caused much damage. The Builders, had they . .

Cited by:

Cited – Sahib Foods Limited and Co-operative Insurance Society Limited v Paskin Kyriakides Sands (A Firm) TCC 3-Mar-2003
The claimants were lessees of premises, and the second claimants had contracted to purchase it. The premises burned down, and the claimants sought damages from the architect respondents. The fire began because of negligence by the claimant’s . .
Cited – Independiente Ltd and others v Music Trading On-Line (HK) Ltd and others ChD 13-Mar-2003
The claimants claimed damages for the sale by the defendants in the UK of CD’s manufactured for sale only in the far East. The defendants challenged the right of a claimant phonographic society to have the right to sue on behalf of its members.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence, Construction

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.178522

North West Thames Regional Health Authority v Shephard Robson (A Firm) and Others: CA 23 Jan 1996

A main employer may apply to the court for the construction of the meaning of sub-contracts with main contractor. A declaration was available to a Plaintiff in respect of sub-contractors only if part of scheme.

Citations:

Times 23-Jan-1996, Ind Summary 12-Feb-1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Construction

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.84345

Trafalgar 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 surety is entitled to question the amounts claimed by arguing that they are excessive or have not been incurred. It goes without saying that such a statement of damage must be made in good faith.’

Judges:

Beldam LJ

Citations:

(1994) 66 BLR 42

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Damages

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.538239

B Hargreaves Ltd v Action 2000 Ltd: CA 15 Feb 1993

A builder was sued for damages, and sought to set off against the damages claimed an as yet unquantified cross claim which was dependent upon a valuation to be carried out, that claim was insufficiently certain or ascertained to permit it to be used by way of set off.

Citations:

Ind Summary 15-Feb-1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Damages, Construction

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.78040

Medtia v Hamid and Another: CA 21 May 2004

The claimant appealed an order after a trial in a construction dispute.
Held: The judge had not properly understood the figures before him in a difficult case. The judgment was adjusted accordingly

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 691

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See also – Medtia v Hamid and Another (Costs) CA 21-May-2004
Appeal against stay – costs . .

Cited by:

See also – Medtia v Hamid and Another (Costs) CA 21-May-2004
Appeal against stay – costs . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction

Updated: 23 October 2022; Ref: scu.197977

Alderson, 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 2001. The claimant said the limitation period began when remedial works failed.
Held: Section 1 imposes a duty of care upon builders of dwellings. 1(5) sets a limitation period of 6 years, but contains a proviso where work is done after completion ‘to rectify the work . . already done’. Parliament intended that there should be a fresh cause of action for breach of the duty to provide a dwelling fit for habitation when the further work did not rectify the original work as intended. The appeal was allowed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Aldous Lord Justice Judge Lord Justice Longmore

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 408, Times 19-Apr-2003, Gazette 12-Jun-2003, [2003] 1 WLR 1686

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Defective Premises Act 1972 1(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Construction, Limitation

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.180458

Daly, Daly v Sheikh: CA 13 Feb 2004

Judges:

Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Rix Lord Justice Ward

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 119

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Daly and Another v Sheikh CA 7-May-2002
Application for leave to appeal . .
See Also – Daly and Another v Sheikh CA 24-Oct-2002
Application for leave to appeal . .

Cited by:

See Also – Daly and Another v Sheikh CA 24-Oct-2002
Application for leave to appeal . .
See Also – Daly and Another v Sheikh CA 7-May-2002
Application for leave to appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.193485

Swales v Revenue and Customs (VAT – Builders : Do-It-Yourself): FTTTx 26 Apr 2019

VALUE ADDED TAX – DIY Builders scheme for refund of VAT – whether construction met condition in Note 2(d) to Group 5 Schedule 8 VATA – Lady Pearson applied – appeal allowed – whether building an annexe also considered – whether prohibition of separate use or disposal also considered – observations on aptness of penalties letter issued with initial rejection (without proper reasons) of claim – costs considered.

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 277 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Construction

Updated: 21 October 2022; Ref: scu.637837

Pollard v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Jun 2010

FTTTx Construction Industry Scheme – Appeal against cancellation of registration for gross payment – ‘Compliance test’ – Whether there was a reasonable excuse – No – Appeal dismissed – section 66 and schedule 11 Finance Act 2004 – Regulation 32 Income Tax (Construction Industry Scheme) Regulations 2005

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 269 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Finance Act 2004 66 Sch 11, Income Tax (Construction Industry Scheme) Regulations 2005 32

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management, Construction

Updated: 19 October 2022; Ref: scu.422282

Aldi Stores Ltd v Holmes Buildings Plc: CA 1 Dec 2003

What makes a claim a ‘new claim’ as defined in section 35(2) of the Limitation Act 1980 is not the newness of the case according to the type or quantum of the remedy claimed, but the newness of the cause of action that it involves. A cause of action is a set of facts that enable one person to obtain a remedy from another; as opposed to a form of action used as a convenient and succinct description of a particular category of factual situation.

Judges:

Auld, Hale and Dyson LJJ

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1882

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 35(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Rhone-Poulenc Rorer International Holdings Inc and Another v Yeda Research and Development Co Ltd ChD 16-Feb-2006
The patent application had been presented to the European Patent Office and granted only after 13 years. The claimant now appealed refusal to allow amendment of its claim to allow a claim in its sole name. The defendant argued that it was out of . .
Cited – Dowson and Others v Northumbria Police QBD 30-Apr-2009
Nine police officers claimed damages for alleged harassment under the 1997 Act by a senior officer in having bullied them and ordered them to carry out unlawful procedures. Amendments were sought which were alleged to be out of time and to have . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Limitation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 19 October 2022; Ref: scu.191208

Jacobs v Customs and Excise: VDT 13 Feb 2004

A developer sought to set off input taxes paid in the redevelopment of a former residential boarding school as a family home.
Held: The taxpayer’s appeal succeeded.

Citations:

[2004] UKVAT V18489

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Jacobs ChD 22-Oct-2004
. .
At VAT Tribunal – Revenue 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: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.195300

Tharsis Sulphur and Copper Co v M’Elroy and Sons: HL 4 Jun 1878

A building contract contained the following clause:-‘ Twelfth, The Company reserve power during the progress of the work to make any alterations, additions, or deductions, or to vary from or alter the plans or materials as they may consider advisable, without in any respect vitiating this contract. This shall only be done under a written order from the Company’s engineer, and allowance will be made for such alterations at the rates in the schedule. The contractors shall not at their own hand, or without a written order from the Company’s engineer, be entitled to make any such alterations or additions, and no allegation by the contractors of knowledge of acquiescence in such alterations or additions on the part of the Company, their engineers or inspectors, shall be accepted or available as equivalent to the certificate of the engineer, or as in any way superseding the necessity of such certificate as the sole warrant for such alterations or additions.’ In a claim for payment on account of greater weight of metal in certain iron girders than was specified in the contract, where it was contended that there had been verbal consent and acquiescence on the part of the employers, and that the extra weight had been certified under the certificates of the defenders’ engineer- held [ rev. judgment of majority of Court of Session] that the terms of the contract excluded any such claim as was made, looking to the circumstances of the case, and to the fact that the forms of certificate by the engineer did not in any way bear out the view that there had been a ratification.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor, Lord Hatherley, Lord Blackburn, and Lord Gordon

Citations:

[1878] UKHL 777, 15 SLR 777

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Construction

Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.646308

Sprunt Ltd v London Borough of Camden: TCC 6 Dec 2011

The court heard applications in adjudication enforcement proceedings between consultants and their employer, issues being raised about the extent to which the construction contract between the parties was in writing for the purposes of Section 107 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (‘HGCRA’) and in relation to the extent and scope of the incorporation of the Scheme for Construction Contracts in circumstances in which the underlying contract does not comply with Section 108 of the HGCRA. This latter issue encompasses another issue which is whether the adjudicator was appointed by the correct nominating body

Judges:

Akenhead J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 3191 (TCC), [2012] 9 EG 152, [2012] CILL 3124,, 140 Con LR 111, [2012] BLR 83

Links:

Bailii

Arbitration, Construction

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451492

Cormac Construction Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 17 Dec 2009

Construction Industry Scheme – Appeal against cancellation of registration for gross payment – ‘Compliance test’ – Whether there was a reasonable excuse – Yes – Appeal Allowed – section 66 and schedule 11 Finance Act 2004 – Regulation 32 Income Tax (Construction Industry Scheme) Regulations 2005

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 380 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Income Tax (Construction Industry Scheme) Regulations 2005

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax, Construction

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.409139

Rebba Construction Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 4 Nov 2009

VALUE ADDED TAX – ZERO RATING – Construction of buildings for a relevant residential purpose – whether an extension to an existing building – yes – whether additional dwellings created – no – Appeal dismissed – note 16(b) item 2 group 5 schedule 8 VATA 1994

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 296 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Construction

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.409122

Prior Roofing Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 11 Nov 2009

Sub-contractors in the construction industry; Construction Industry Scheme; removal of Gross Payments Status; appeal under section 67 Finance Act 2004; ‘compliance test’; ‘reasonable excuse’ for failure of the compliance test; ‘exceptional’ business conditions.

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 302 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax, Construction

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.409118

A Longworth and Sons Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 24 Jun 2009

FTTTx Cancellation of Gross Payment Status under s66(1) Finance Act 2004; reasonable excuse for failures; trading problems; use of discounted invoice system; proportionality.

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 286 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Finance Act 2004 66(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax, Construction

Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.408989

Dunlop and Ranken Ltd v Hendall Steel Structures Ltd: CA 1957

There was no debt arising under a building contract which could be the subject of a garnishee order where there was no ’cause of action’ and no debt until an architect’s certificate had been issued.
Lord Goddard CJ said: ‘. . until the architect has given a certificate, the builder has no right to receive any sum of money from his employer by what I may call a drawing on account. He must get a certificate from the architect . . until the contractor can produce to the building owner a certificate he cannot receive anything.’

Judges:

Lord Goddard, CJ, Havers, J

Citations:

[1957] 1 WLR 1102

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Taurus Petroleum Limited v State Oil Marketing Company of The Ministry of Oil, Republic of Iraq SC 25-Oct-2017
The parties disputed their contract arrangements. It was referred to an arbitration in London, but applying Iraqi law. The respondent failed to meet the award made against it, and the claimant sought to enforce the award here by means of third party . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.646123

Jonathon Berry Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 6 Aug 2010

VAT – DIY builders and converters refund scheme – whether building ceased to be existing building – whether what was retained was no more than a single facade – whether its retention a condition or requirement of statutory planning consent or similar permission – note (18), Group 5, Sch 8 VATA

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 652 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Construction

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.449428

Munkenbeck and Marshall and Another v The Vinyl Factory Ltd and Others: TCC 2 Dec 2019

Claim for unpaid fees which the Claimants allege are due in respect of design work carried out by the Claimants for the redevelopment of the Marshall Street Baths and an adjacent car park in Poland Street, in Westminster

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 3225 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.645929

HM Inspector of Taxes v CBL Cable Contractors Ltd: ChD 23 Jun 2005

Judges:

Laddie J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1294 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Construction, Income Tax

Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.227944

Industrial Contracting Services Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 4 May 2011

Construction Industry Scheme – Cancellation of registration for gross payment (Finance Act 2004 s.66) – Whether there was a ‘reasonable excuse’ (Finance Act 2004 Sch 11 para 4(4)(a)) – Proportionality – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 290 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax, Construction

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.443050

KD Ductworks Installations v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 21 Jan 2011

Appeal against penalties imposed for the late submission of ten monthly CIS returns on the grounds that not all the returns were received from HMRC – those received were posted on time but delayed by the postal service- the Appellant had reported the nil returns by telephone.

Judges:

Radford

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 76 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Taxes – Other, Construction

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.442813

Solland International Ltd v Daraydan Holdings Ltd: TCC 15 Feb 2002

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 220 (Technology)

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Daraydan Holdings Limited, Cairn Estates Limited and Others v Solland International Limited and Others ChD 26-Mar-2004
The court was asked whether Lister and Co v Stubbs 45 ChD 1, a decision of the Court of Appeal, was binding on him or whether he could apply the Privy Council’s decision in Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid
Held: On the facts of the case . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction

Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.170072

AMEC Capital Projects Ltd v Whitefriars City Estates Ltd: TCC 27 Feb 2004

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 393 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – AMEC Capital Projects Ltd v Whitefriars City Estate Ltd TCC 19-Sep-2003
Application to enforce adjudicators award, and application to stay same. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – AMEC Capital Projects Ltd v Whitefriars City Estates Ltd CA 28-Oct-2004
Alleged bias and procedural unfairness by an adjudicator appointed to determine a dispute in relation to a construction contract.
Held: The principles of the common law rules of natural justice and procedural fairness were two-fold. A . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration, Construction

Updated: 14 September 2022; Ref: scu.219228

Commissioners for Customs and Excise v Southern Primary Housing Limited: CA 18 Nov 2003

The land owner had elected to pay VAT on the purchase of land. It sought to recover that VAT. The Commissioners appealed an order allowing that.
Held: Ther were three transactions, the purchase, the sale, and a development contract. The input tax paid in carrying out the building contract were recoverable. Was the land therefore used ‘for the purpose of the taxpayer’s taxable transaction’, namely the development contract? The cost of the land was not a component of the costs in the same way that the materials were. The mere commercial link was insufficient. The transactions had to be looked at separately in VAT law, component by component.

Judges:

Lord Justice Mantell Lord Phillips Of Worth Matravers, Mr Lord Justice Jacob

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1662, Times 21-Nov-2003

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – BLP Group v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ 6-Apr-1995
The use of taxable goods for an exempt transaction disallowed a claim against VAT input tax. The use in that provision of the words ‘for transactions’ shows that to give the right to deduct under paragraph 2, the goods or services in question must . .
Cited – Midland Bank plc v Customs and Excise Commissioners ECJ 8-Jun-2000
If there is a clear and direct link between the purchase of goods and their use in output transactions on which VAT was payable, input tax was deductible even if VAT was not deductible in respect of all the supplies. Where the link is indirect than . .
Cited – Abbey National Plc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ 22-Feb-2001
Where a part or whole of a business was sold as a going concern, not all the VAT on the expenses of the sale was to be set off against VAT. The entire amount of VAT could only be set off where the assets sold were sold as a properly identifiable . .
Cited – Card Protection Plan Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ 25-Feb-1999
A company procuring insurance purchases for credit card protection was as exempt from VAT as was the insurer. A provision which restricted the ability to claim such exemption to those registered as insurers under national was invalid under European . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Land, Construction

Updated: 14 September 2022; Ref: scu.188107

Sutcliffe v Thackrah and Others: HL 1974

In acting under clause 66 of the ICE conditions, the Engineer was in the intermediate position of a quasi-arbitrator. The House described in terms of ‘fairness’ the duty of an architect when acting not as an arbitrator or quasi-arbitrator but in the role of valuer or certifier.
An action for damages for negligence will lie against a valuer to whom the parties have referred the question of valuation if one of them suffers loss as the result of his negligent valuation.
Lord Reid spoke of a duty to act in a fair and unbiased manner or fairly and impartially. Viscount Dilhorne regarded an honest exercise of professional skill and judgment as enough.

Judges:

Lord Reid, Lord Hodson, Lord Morris and Lord Salmon, Viscount Dilhorne

Citations:

[1974] AC 727, [1974] 1 All ER 859, [1974] 2 WLR 295, [1974] 1 Lloyds Rep 318

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Canterbury Pipe Lines v The Christchurch Drainage Board 1979
(New Zealand Court of Appeal) ‘In Hatrick the term ‘fairness’ was avoided in the judgments, Richmond J saying that he resisted it partly because of its vagueness and partly because it might be regarded as equivalent to natural justice. . . . In our . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Arbitration, Professional Negligence

Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.224303

Westminster Building Company Ltd v Beckingham: TCC 20 Feb 2004

Court Service Enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision; adjudication not subject to Housing Grants, Regeneration and Construction Act 1996; jurisdiction where terms of contract in dispute; applicability of Shepherd v Mecright; applicability of Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
Held: The contract was governed by an adjudication clause, the adjudicator had jurisdiction to determine whether the contract varying the construction contract was enforceable or lacked consideration, the adjudication clause was not unfair and was binding on Mr Beckingham, the adjudicator’s decision would be enforced and there would be judgment for Westminster in the sum claimed. This judgment was made in writing and was handed down by the court. For the purposes of paragraph 5.12 of 52PD-19 (Practice Direction – Appeals), this written judgment is to be taken as replacing an official recording and approved transcript of the judgment.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Thornton QC

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 138 (TCC), 94 Con LR 107, [2004] BLR 163, [2004] BLR 265, [2004] TCLR 8

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Arbitration, Construction

Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.201843

Harmon CFEM Facades (UK) Limited v The Corporate Officer of The House of Commons: TCC 28 Oct 1999

The claimant said that the respondent had awarded a contract for works at the House of Commons disregarding its obligations under European law as regards open tendering.

Citations:

[1999] EWHC Technology 199, 1996 ORB No 1151, (1999) 67 Con LR 1

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Public Works Contracts Regulations 1991

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Rewe-Zentralfinanz eG v Landwirtschaftskammer fur das Saarland (Judgment) ECJ 16-Dec-1976
‘the right of individuals to rely on the directly effective provisions of the Treaty before national courts is only a minimum guarantee and is not sufficient in itself to ensure the full and complete implementation of the Treaty’
1. The . .
Cited – Commission v Denmark ECJ 22-Jun-1993
Opinion – Tesauro AG said: ‘where a public contract falls to be awarded, it is precisely because the procedure is a competition that it must be ensured that all those who take part have an equal chance; otherwise, it would no longer be a public . .
Cited – Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd PC 27-Jun-1994
(New Zealand) The plaintiff, an MP, pursued a defamation case. The defendant wished to argue for the truth of what was said, and sought to base his argument on things said in Parliament. The plaintiff responded that this would be a breach of . .

Cited by:

See Also – Harmon CFEM Facades (UK) Ltd v The Corporate Officer of the House of Commons TCC 29-Jun-2000
The company began a claim for damages for the failure to complete an award of a contract, but then went into voluntary liquidation. The defendant refused payment claiming that it would be used only for payment of the insolvency practitioner’s costs. . .
Cited – Montpellier Estates Ltd v Leeds City Council QBD 24-Jun-2010
The defendant sought to strike out certain parts of the claim against it relating to the tendering process for works on a substantial development. It was said that the defendant had given improper preference for the development of its own site.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, Construction, European

Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.135813

Parsons Plastics (Research and Development) Ltd v Purac Ltd: CA 12 Apr 2002

The claimants were main contractors on a construction project. The respondents were sub-contractors. After difficulties, the sub-contractor was ejected from the site. The issue was as to the jurisdiction of the adjudicator. Was the project, to create a sewage station, a ‘construction operation’ within the Act?
Held: The sum was due under the contract irrespective of whether an adjudicator also found it to be due. The contract could not be re-read to exclude the arbitration requirement. In this case the contractors were unlikely to succeed in any attempt to deny the sub-contractors their right to payment for works done, and payment should not be delayed for a set off claim. The judge was entitled, in her discretion, to make an interim award.

Judges:

The Hon Mr Justice Latham

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 459, (2002) 93 Con LR 26

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Swain v Hillman CA 21-Oct-1999
Strike out – Realistic Not Fanciful Chance Needed
The proper test for whether an action should be struck out under the new Rules was whether it had a realistic as opposed to a fanciful prospect of success. There was no justification for further attempts to explain the meaning of what are clear . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Contract, Arbitration

Updated: 09 September 2022; Ref: scu.171203

Gabriel v Kirklees Metropolitan Council: CA 24 Mar 2004

The claimant (aged 6) sought damages after being hurt when other children playing on a building site threw stones from the site, hitting him as he passed by.
Held: The case raised questions of law and it was incumbent on the judge to provide detailed findings on the facts. A question of law was arguable, but the court was unable to determine the issue without the necessary findings of fact. The case would be remitted for retrial before a different judge.

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 345, Times 12-Apr-2004

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty (The Wagon Mound) (No 2) PC 25-May-1966
(New South Wales) When considering the need to take steps to avoid injury, the court looked to the nature of defendant’s activity. There was no social value or cost saving in this defendant’s activity. ‘In the present case there was no justification . .
Cited – Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council HL 24-May-2000
An abandoned boat had been left on its land and not removed by the council. Children tried to repair it, jacked it up, and a child was injured when it fell. It was argued for the boy, who now appealed dismissal of his claim by the Court of Appeal, . .
Cited – Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Limited (Chief Constable, Fife Constabulary, third party); Maloco v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd HL 1987
The defendant acquired a semi derelict cinema with a view to later development of the site. A fire started by others spread to the pursuer’s adjoining property.
Held: The defendants were not liable in negligence. The intervention of a third . .
Cited – Goldman v Hargrave PC 13-Jun-1966
(Australia) In Western Australia, a red gum tree was struck by lightning and set on fire. The appellant had the tree cut down, but took no reasonable steps by spraying the fire with water to prevent the fire from spreading, believing that it would . .
Cited – Glasgow Corporation v Muir HL 16-Apr-1943
The House considered the proper test to define the standard of care that must be adopted by the reasonable man in a claim for negligence.
Held: Lord Clauson said that the test is whether the person owing the duty of care ‘had in contemplation . .
Cited – Bolton v Stone HL 10-May-1951
The plaintiff was injured by a prodigious and unprecedented hit of a cricket ball over a distance of 100 yards. He claimed damages in negligence.
Held: When looking at the duty of care the court should ask whether the risk was not so remote . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Personal Injury, Negligence

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.194897

AMEC 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. They said the defenders should have issued a variation to allow them to claim the costs. The defenders said it could have been claimed as a quantum meruit.
Held: Quantum meruit was not normally claimable where there was a contract. There was a discretion to issue an instruction to vary and that had to be exercised reasonably. The pursuers averred that the defenders were under an obligation to ensure that their site manager operated the contract properly by issuing the instruction. No such term could be implied.

Judges:

Lord Carloway

Citations:

[2003] ScotCS 223

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Cited – Smith New Court Securities Ltd v Scrimgeour Vickers HL 21-Nov-1996
The defendant had made misrepresentations, inducing the claimant to enter into share transactions which he would not otherwise have entered into, and which lost money.
Held: A deceitful wrongdoer is properly liable for all actual damage . .
Cited – Downs v Chappell; Downs v Stephenson Smart (a Firm) CA 1996
The plaintiff purchased a book shop. He claimed that in doing so he had relied upon the accounts prepared and signed off by the respective defendants.
Held: The judge had been wrong by testing what would have been the true figures as against . .
Cited – Tharsis Sulpur v McElroy and Sons HL 1878
A contractor asked to carry out works was entitled to be paid on a quantum meruit basis if no price appeared to have been set under the contract. . .
Cited – Leyland 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 – 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 . .
Cited – Esso Petroleum Company Ltd v Mardon CA 6-Feb-1976
Statements had been made by employees of Esso in the course of pre-contractual negotiations with Mr Mardon, the prospective tenant of a petrol station. The statements related to the potential throughput of the station. Mr Mardon was persuaded by the . .
Cited – Thorn v Mayor and Commonality of London HL 1876
The contractor successfully tendered for work involving the replacement of the existing Blackfriars Bridge pursuant to an employer’s invitation, which stated that the work was to be carried out pursuant to a specification. The specification included . .
Cited – Boyd and Forrest v Glasgow and South-Western Railway Co HL 11-Jan-1915
The issuing of an instruction was not a condition precedent to entitlement to payment in a construction contract. . .
Cited – Doyle v Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd CA 31-Jan-1969
The plaintiff had been induced by the fraudulent misrepresentation of the defendant to buy an ironmonger’s business for 4,500 pounds plus stock at a valuation of 5,000 pounds. Shortly after the purchase, he discovered the fraud and started the . .
Cited – Barry and Barry v Sutherland SCS 23-Nov-2001
The pursuers alleged that the defender had made fraudulent misrepresentations to them when selling them his bar business. On entry they had found a set of accounts showing a lower turnover, and exercised an option to break their lease.
Held: . .
Cited – South Australia Asset Management Corporation v York Montague Ltd etc HL 24-Jun-1996
Limits of Damages for Negligent Valuations
Damages for negligent valuations are limited to the foreseeable consequences of advice, and do not include losses arising from a general fall in values. Valuation is seldom an exact science, and within a band of figures valuers may differ without . .
Cited – Bank of Scotland v Dunedin Property Investment Co Ltd IHCS 24-Sep-1998
Issue of loan stock supported by charge for ‘all costs charges and expenses incurred’ this included the breakage cost of the bank in setting up interest-rate swap arrangements to protect itself against swings in costs. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Contract

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.185400

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

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

Citations:

[2015] UKUT 472 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction, Income Tax

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.553195

Eagle v Redlime Ltd: QBD 4 Apr 2011

The builder replied to a claim in negligence that it was out of time. They had built a concrete base for a kennels. The claimant said that they had not constructed proper foundations, and that he had come to know this only within the limitation period when it began to crack.

Judges:

Eder J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 838 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 14A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Limitation, Construction

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.431736