Category: Construction

MT Hojgaard As v EON Climate and Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Ltd and Another: SC 3 Aug 2017

The defendants had requested tenders for the design and construction of an offshore wind farm. The court now considered the situation arising because of inconsistencies between documents in the tender request. The successful tender was based upon an international standard (approved by one part of the tender), but which came to fail, breaching a different requirement. The standard was itself in error. The defendant appealed.
Held: The appeal succeeded, and the decision at first instance restored. The part of the contract at issue specified a minimum level, and the contract expressly supported ‘departures from . . standards’, and stated that MTH ‘shall determine whether to employ shear keys within the grouted connection’; had shear keys been provided, the problems which arose would, it appears, have been averted.

Judges:

Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury PSC, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony, Lord Sumption, Lord Hodge JJSC
Lord Mance
Lord Clarke
Lord Sumption
Lord Hodge

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 59, [2017] Bus LR 1610, [2017] WLR(D) 562, UKSC 2015/0115

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 20170620 am Video, SC 20170620 pm Video

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At TCC – MT Hojgaard A/S v E.On Climate and Renewables and Others TCC 15-Apr-2014
The claimant had constructed a substantial windfarm according to an international standard later shown to be defective. The defendant argued that the contract also required that the work be to a standard guaranteed a service life of 20 years.
At CA – M T Hojgaard A/S v EOn Climate and Renewables UK, Robin Rigg East Ltd and Another CA 22-May-2014
The claimant contracted with the defendants for the supply of a barge for delivery of equipment to offshore wind farms. The barge proved inadequate. The company supplied an alternative vessel, and the parties now disputed the financial consequences. . .
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 – Mitsui Construction Co Ltd v Attorney General of Hong Kong PC 1986
Lord Bridge said that poor drafting in a contract itself provides: ‘no reason to depart from the fundamental rule of construction of contractual documents that the intention of the parties must be ascertained from the language that they have used . .
Cited – Sigma Finance Corporation, Re; (in administrative receivership) SC 29-Oct-2009
The court considered how the losses of the insolvent company were to be distributed as between secured creditors and preferential creditors, given the terms of the applicable trust deed.
Held: The court considered the interpretations of the . .
Cited – A M Gillespie and Co v John Howden and Co, Et E Contra SCS 7-Mar-1885
A customer ordered from a shipbuilder a ship according to specification, which bore, inter alia, that the ship was ‘to Carry 1800 tons dead weight, including coals, on 14 1/2 feet draught,’ and that a model was to be submitted for purchaser’s . .
Cited – Cammell Laird and Co Ltd v Manganese Bronze and Brass Co Ltd HL 1934
Shipbuilders agreed to build two ships to carry heavy liquids. They were to have propellers of special construction and diameter according to certain specifications. One proved unsatisfactory because it caused too much noise.
Held: If the . .
Cited – Greater Vancouver Water District v North American Pipe and Steel Ltd 14-Aug-2012
Canadian Supreme Court – implications of a contractual warranty that goods supplied by a supplier of materials for a construction project ‘will be fit for the purpose for which they are to be used’ and a warranty and guarantee that the goods ‘are . .
Cited – Mt Hojgaard A/S v EOn Climate and Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Ltd and Others TCC 23-Apr-2013
Dispute as to adequacy of barge provided for support of marine wind farm. . .
Cited – LB Holdings Intermediate 2 Ltd, The Joint Administrators of v Lehman Brothers International (Europe), The Joint Administrators of and Others SC 17-May-2017
In the course of the insolvent administration of the bank, substantial additional sums were received. Parties appealed against some orders made on the application to court for directions as to what was to be done with the surplus.
Held: The . .
Cited – Wood v Capita Insurance Services Ltd SC 29-Mar-2017
Construction of term of contract for the sale and purchase of the entire issued share capital of a company.
Held: The appeal was dismissed: ‘the SPA may have become a poor bargain, as it appears that it did not notify the sellers of a warranty . .
Cited – The Hydraulic Engineering Co Ltd v Spencer and Sons CA 1886
The defendants had contracted to make and deliver to the plaintiffs 15 cast iron cylinders. The contract provided that the cylinders would be cast according to specifications and plans provided by the plaintiffs, and also that the cylinders would be . .
Cited – Steel Company of Canada Ltd v Willand Management Ltd 4-Oct-1966
Supreme Court of Canada – Contracts-Roofing contract-Descriptions and specifications supplied by owner-Guarantee that work will remain weather tight-Damage caused by failure of material to perform intended function-Contractor’s claim for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.591359

MT Hojgaard A/S v E.On Climate and Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Ltd and Another: CA 30 Apr 2015

Appeal by a contractor against a finding that it warranted that the foundation structures which it designed and installed for an offshore wind farm would have a service life of 20 years. Those foundations failed shortly after completion. The construction had been in accordance with an international standard later shown to be in error.

Judges:

Jackson, Patten, Underhill LJJ

Citations:

[2015] EWCA Civ 407

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.546212

Mt Hojgaard A/S v EOn Climate and Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Ltd and Others: TCC 23 Apr 2013

Dispute as to adequacy of barge provided for support of marine wind farm.

Judges:

Stuart-Smith J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 967 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – MT Hojgaard As v EON Climate and Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Ltd and Another SC 3-Aug-2017
The defendants had requested tenders for the design and construction of an offshore wind farm. The court now considered the situation arising because of inconsistencies between documents in the tender request. The successful tender was based upon an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.472901

MT Hojgaard A/S v E.On Climate and Renewables and Others: TCC 15 Apr 2014

The claimant had constructed a substantial windfarm according to an international standard later shown to be defective. The defendant argued that the contract also required that the work be to a standard guaranteed a service life of 20 years.
Held: The claim succeeded. The Court rejected the suggestion that MTH had been negligent, and he also rejected a number of allegations of breach of contract made by E.ON. However, he found for E.ON primarily on the ground that (i) clause 8.1(x) of the contract required the foundations to be fit for purpose, (ii) fitness for purpose was to be determined by reference to the TR, and (iii) para 3.2.2.2(ii) (and also para 3b.5.1) of the TR required the foundations to be designed so that they would have a lifetime of 20 years. He also held that this conclusion was also supported by clauses 8.1(viii) and (xv).

Judges:

Edwards-Stuart J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 1088 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – M T Hojgaard A/S v EOn Climate and Renewables UK, Robin Rigg East Ltd and Another CA 22-May-2014
The claimant contracted with the defendants for the supply of a barge for delivery of equipment to offshore wind farms. The barge proved inadequate. The company supplied an alternative vessel, and the parties now disputed the financial consequences. . .
At TCC – MT Hojgaard As v EON Climate and Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Ltd and Another SC 3-Aug-2017
The defendants had requested tenders for the design and construction of an offshore wind farm. The court now considered the situation arising because of inconsistencies between documents in the tender request. The successful tender was based upon an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.526250

Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company v Bovis Lend Lease Limited: QBD 5 Oct 2004

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Colman

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2197 (Comm), [2005] Lloyd’s Rep IR 74, [2005] 2 CLC 617, [2005] 2 All ER (Comm) 669, 98 Con LR 21, [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 494, [2005] BLR 47, [2004] 42 EG 160

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Insurance, Construction

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.215921

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

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

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 660 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Value Added Tax Act 1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Construction

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.518618

PVC Fascia Company v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 24 Nov 2010

FTTTx Sub-contractors in the construction industry – Failure to make deductions from payments to sub-contractors – HMRC not satisfied payments taken into account on sub-contractors returns – determinations to pay amount not deducted – whether determinations in correct amount – amount partly reduced – insufficient evidence for further reduction – Appeal allowed in part – Regulation 13 of the Income tax (Construction Industry Scheme) Regulations 2005

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 17 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management, Construction

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428201

Pilkington United Kingdom Limited v CGU Insurance Plc: QBD 28 Jan 2004

The claimants had installed glass tiles in a roof. They fractured, and facing a claim for damages, they sought payment from their insurers. The claimants argued that the risk of fracture meant that the damage occurred upon installation, the insurers contended that liability arose only as tiles broke.
Held: To construe the insuring clause as if an occurrence could include mere damage caused by the commodity to itself, would fail to give effect to the natural meaning of the language which contemplates that physical damage will be caused by the commodity to something else. The damage claimed was not within the cover provided by the insuring clause.

Judges:

Mr Justice Charles Lord Justice Jonathan Parker Lord Justice Potter

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 23

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Rodan International Limited v Commercial Union CA 1999
The claimants sold bulk soap powder. The packager packed it in defective cardboard which caused it to cake. The buyer sought damages.for breach of contract against Rodan (i) for the difference between the sound value of the powder and its reduced . .
Cited – A S Screenprint Ltd v British Reserve Insurance Co Ltd CA 1999
The Plaintiffs were insured under a policy that indemnified them, ‘against all sums which the Insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of . . loss or damage . . during the period of insurance and caused by goods (including containers) . . .
Cited – James Budgett Sugars Ltd v Norwich Union Insurance Ltd ComC 15-May-2002
The insured sold contaminated sugar to a manufacturer of mincemeat so as to render it unmerchantable, the contamination was only discovered after the mincemeat had been sold on to end users.
Held: Physical damage may be caused by the mere fact . .
Cited – Yorkshire Water Services Ltd v Sun Alliance and London Insurance Plc and Others (1) CA 20-Aug-1996
The court was asked whether the costs of flood alleviation works were recoverable under public liability insurance policies.
Held: A claim for the costs of remedial action taken to mitigate future losses were not covered by the terms of the . .
Cited – Charter Reinsurance Co Ltd v Fagan and Others HL 24-May-1996
The re-insurers appealed against a finding that they were liable to make payment under a contract which required them to pay ‘sums actually paid.’ They said that the company having become insolvent, no payment would in fact be made.
Held: The . .
Cited – Promet Engineering (Singapore) Pte Ltd (Formerly Self-Elevating Platform Management Pte Limited) v Nicholas Colwyn Sturge and others (The Nukila) CA 26-Mar-1997
Insurers were liable for other damage to ship hull if there had been more than a latent defect in it. In Inchmaree clauses in English law, ‘damage’ usually refers to a changed physical state. . .
Cited – Goulandris Bros v Goldmann and Sons 1958
An insurance clause ensuring ‘loss or damage in connexion with the goods’ under the Hague Rules for carriage of goods by sea includes economic loss even in the absence of such physical damage. . .
Cited – Re Bradley and Essex and Suffolk Accident Indemnity Society CA 1912
A policy provided an indemnity against employer’s liability under the 1906 Act, but required employers to keep a wages book and to notify the insurers of details of all remuneration paid during the period of insurance within one month from the end . .
Cited – Pioneer Concrete (UK) Ltd v National Employers Mutual General Insurance Association Ltd 1985
The case concerned the construction of a policy containing terms requiring the insured to notify the insurers ‘immediately’ if he had knowledge of any accident, claim or proceedings.
Held: In any case where an insurer is entitled to rely on . .
Cited – Alfred Mcalpine Plc v BAI (Run-Off) Limited CA 11-Feb-2000
Obligations in a Notice of Claims clause should not be treated as conditions precedent to liability but as innominate terms apt only to create a defence to a claim under the policy if the consequences of breach are so serious as to give the insurers . .
Cited – George Hunt Cranes Ltd v Scottish Boiler and General Insurance Co Ltd CA 2002
Provisions in a policy which are stated to be conditions precedent should not be treated as a mere formality which is to be evaded at the cost of a forced and unnatural construction of the words used in the policy. They should be construed fairly to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Insurance

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.192288

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Jacobs: ChD 22 Oct 2004

Judges:

Lord Justice Evans-Lombe

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2358 (Ch), [2004] STC 1662

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – 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. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.218853

Sidgwick v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 8 Sep 2010

Appeal against refusal of claim for refund of VAT under DIY Builder Scheme; 13 amp heat storage Aga; whether ‘electrical appliance’ ‘designed to heat space’ under Schedule 8 Group 5 Note 22; Appeal Refused.

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 421 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Construction

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.426595

R W Westworth Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 3 Sep 2010

Construction Industry Scheme – Appeal against cancellation of registration for gross payment – failure of ‘Compliance test’ – Whether a reasonable excuse on facts – Yes – Appeal allowed – section 66 and schedule 11 Finance Act 2004

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 477 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax, Construction

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.426590

Straw Realisations (No 1) Ltd v Shaftsbury House (Developments) Ltd: TCC 20 Oct 2010

The applicant sought summary judgment on two construction arbitration decisions. The defendant objected saying that the claimant was impecunious.
Held: Edwards-Stuart J considered the position applying to an impecunious claimant seeking to enforce an arbitration award: ‘If, at the date of the hearing of the application to enforce an adjudicator’s decision, the successful party is in liquidation, then the adjudicator’s decision will not be enforced by way of summary judgment: see Bouygues v Dahl Jensen and Melville Dundas. The same result follows if a party is the subject of the appointment of administrative receivers: see Melville Dundas.
For the same reasons, I consider that if a party is in administration and a notice of distribution has been given, an adjudicator’s decision will not be enforced.
If a party is in administration, but no notice of distribution has been given, an adjudicator’s decision which has not become final will not be enforced by way of summary judgment. In my view, this follows from the decision in Melville Dundas as well as being consistent with the reasoning in Integrated Building Services v PIHL.
If the circumstances are as in paragraph (4) above but the adjudicator’s decision has, by agreement of the parties or operation of the contract, become final, the decision may be enforced by way of summary judgment (subject to the imposition of a stay). I reach this conclusion because I do not consider that the reasoning of the majority in Melville Dundas extends to this situation.
There is no rule of English law that the fact that a party is on the verge of insolvency (‘vergens ad inopiam’) triggers the operation of bankruptcy set-off: see Melville Dundas, per Lord Hope at paragraph 33. However, the law in Scotland appears to be different on this point (perhaps because the Scottish courts do not enjoy the power to grant a stay in such circumstances).
If a party is insolvent in a real sense, or its financial circumstances are such that if an adjudicator’s decision is complied with the paying party is unlikely to recover its money, or at least a substantial part of it, the court may grant summary judgment but stay the enforcement of that judgment.
. . the factors affecting the discretion of the court when considering whether or not to grant a stay where it appears that the successful party would be unable to repay an award if it was subsequently held to be wrong are clearly set out in the judgments of Coulson J in Wimbledon Construction Ltd v Derek Vago [2005] BLR 374, Mead General Building Ltd v Dartmoor Properties Ltd [2009] EWHC 200 (TCC) and Pilon Ltd v Breyer [2010] BLR 452 – the last two involving a Company or Creditor’s Voluntary Arrangement. Broadly speaking, Coulson J said that where a party is in insolvent liquidation or there is no dispute on the evidence that it is insolvent (or unlikely to be able to repay the sum awarded by the adjudicator), a stay of execution will usually be granted unless either that party’s financial situation was the same or similar to its financial situation at the time when the relevant contract was made or its insolvency is due, either wholly or in significant part, to the other party’s failure to pay the sums awarded by the adjudicator (this is just a broad summary in my own words for convenience: where the point arises reference should be made to Coulson J’s judgments).’

Judges:

Edwards-Stuart J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2597 (TCC), [2011] BLR 47, 133 Con LR 82

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Alexander and Law Ltd v Coveside (21BPR) Ltd TCC 12-Dec-2013
The claimant sought to enforce an arbitration award. The respondent resisted, saying that the claimant faced unresolved insolvency proceedings, and may be unable to repay any sum later found due. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Arbitration

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.425363

Broda Agro Trade (Cyprus) Ltd v Alfred C. Toepfer International Gmbh: CA 11 Oct 2010

Challenge to validity of arbitration agreement

Judges:

Mummery, Lloyd, Stanley Burnton LJJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 1100, [2011] CP Rep 3, 132 Con LR 1, [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 243, [2011] Bus LR 825

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction, Arbitration

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.424976

Johnston and Another (T/A Johnston Builders) v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 11 May 2010

FTTTx BUILDING CONTRACTORS – Construction Industry Scheme – failure to operate scheme in respect of sub-contractor – no CIS returns made – sub-contractor paid gross – whether Appellant entitled to relief under Regulation 9.1 (CIS) Regulations 2005 – answer no – appeal dismissed

Judges:

Ian Vellins J

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 212 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Income Tax, Construction

Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.422231

Chatterton v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 1 Feb 2010

FTTTx CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY SCHEME – Appellant suffered a debt of andpound;200,000 in 2003 – failed compliance test Finance Act 2004 Schedule 11 paragraph 12 for periods 19/07/07 to 18/07/08 – bad debt and potential closure of business not reasonable excuses – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 147 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Finance Act 2004 Sch 11.12

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax, Construction

Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.422161

Fillite (Runcorn) Ltd v Aqua-Lift: CA 1989

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

Judges:

Nourse LJ, Slade LJ

Citations:

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Fiona Trust and Holding Corp and others v Privalov and others ComC 20-Oct-2006
The parties disputed whether their claim should be arbitrated.
Held: A claim as to whether the contract itself had been made was not one which could be arbitrated by provisions in that contract. It does not arise ‘under’ the contract. The . .
Cited – Fiona Trust and Holding Corporation and others v Privalov and others CA 24-Jan-2007
The court was asked whether when contracts have been induced by bribery and have been rescinded on discovery of the bribery, that constitutes a dispute which can be determined by arbitration in the context of a common form of arbitration clause.
Cited – Premium Nafta Products Ltd (20th Defendant) and others v Fili Shipping Company Ltd and others; Fiona Trust and Holding Corporation v Privalov HL 17-Oct-2007
The owners of a ship sought to rescind charters saying that they had been procured by bribery.
Held: A claim to rescind a contract by reason of bribery fell within the scope of an arbitration clause under which the parties had agreed to refer . .
Cited – Aspect Contracts (Asbetos) Ltd v Higgins Construction Plc SC 17-Jun-2015
Aspect had claimed the return of funds paid by it to the appellant Higgins under an adjudication award in a construction contract disute. The claimant had been asked to prpare asbestos surveys and reports on maisonettes which Higgins was to acquire . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Arbitration

Updated: 20 August 2022; Ref: scu.245557

Pilon Ltd v Breyer Group Plc: TCC 23 Apr 2010

Coulson J said: ‘The law on this topic is clear. Jurisdictional issues often arise during the course of an adjudication, and it is usually sensible for the parties to ask the adjudicator to investigate the issue and state his conclusion. But, unless the parties have also agreed to be bound by the result of the adjudicator’s investigation into his own jurisdiction, his ruling on that issue will not be determinative, and the challenger can defeat any subsequent enforcement proceedings by showing a respectable case that the adjudicator had reached an erroneous conclusion as to jurisdiction: see, in particular, paragraph 10 of the judgment of May LJ in Pegram Shopfitters Limited v Tally Weijl (Uk) Limited [2003] EWCA Civ 1750.
Accordingly, there needs to be either an express agreement between the parties that the adjudicator’s decision on jurisdiction is to be binding or, at the very least, an implied agreement to the same effect, which may arise where the objecting party fails to reserve its position, or there has been a unilateral waiver of any jurisdictional objection. In both JW Hughes Building Contractors Limited v GB Metal Work Limited [2003] EWHC 2421 (TCC) and Nordot Engineering Limited v Siemens Plc [2001] CILL 1778, the court found an ad hoc agreement between the parties that they would be bound by the adjudicator’s decision as to jurisdiction, but such cases are rare. Generally speaking, as Dyson LJ put it in Amec Projects Limited v Whitefriars City Estates Limited [2004] EWCA Civ 1418, ‘the ‘decision’ of an adjudicator as to his jurisdiction is of no legal effect and cannot affect the rights of the parties . . .”

Judges:

Coulson J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 837 (TCC), [2010] BLR 452, [2010] CILL 2865, [2011] Bus LR D42, 130 Con LR 90

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Aedifice Partnership Ltd v Shah TCC 10-Aug-2010
The defendant challenged the arbitration enforcement saying that there had been no contract and therefore no jurisdiction for the arbitration. . .
Cited – Alexander and Law Ltd v Coveside (21BPR) Ltd TCC 12-Dec-2013
The claimant sought to enforce an arbitration award. The respondent resisted, saying that the claimant faced unresolved insolvency proceedings, and may be unable to repay any sum later found due. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Arbitration

Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.412289

Grosvenor v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 11 May 2009

FTTTx Construction Industry Scheme-Cancellation of registration for gross payment (Finance Act 2004 s.66)-Whether ‘reasonable excuse for the failure to comply’ (Finance Act 2004 Sch 11 para 4(4)(a); Taxes Management Act 1970 s.118(2))-Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 283 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxes Management Act 1970 118(2)

Taxes Management, Construction

Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.408988

Bruns (T/A TK Fabrications) v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 8 Feb 2010

FTTTx CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY SCHEME – Cancellation of registration for gross payment – whether compliance failure of which account could be taken in cancelling registration – held no – whether the Appellant had a reasonable excuse for compliance failure – held yes – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 58 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction, Taxes Management

Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.408916

Radford and Robinson v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Jan 2010

GROSS PAYMENT STATUS – Compliance test – Cancellation – non compliance by one of partners with personal tax liabilities – whether reasonable excuse – no. Whether notice of failures given sufficient – no, whether notice given with out delay – no. Appeal allowed

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 31 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Construction, Income Tax

Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.408904

City and General (Holborn) Ltd v Royal and Sun Alliance Plc: CA 23 Feb 2010

Renewed application for permission to appeal from a judgment of Christopher Clarke J sitting in the Technology and Construction Court, in which he refused to extend time for service of a claim form or, more accurately, set aside the ex parte order which had been made extending that time.

Judges:

Sir Mark Potter P FD, Longmore LJ

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 238

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Limitation, Construction

Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.407761

Fuji Seal Europe Ltd v Catalytic Combustion Corporation: TCC 20 Jul 2005

Claim for damages for alleged negligence and breach of contract in relation to the supply of chemical abatement plant to a printing works in Kent.

Judges:

Jaclson J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1659 (TCC), 102 Con LR 47

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract, Professional Negligence, Construction

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.229231

Edlington Properties Ltd v J H Fenner and Co Ltd: QBD 20 Oct 2005

The landlord sought repayment of arrears of rent. The tenant sought to raise a set off which had arisen against the landlord’s predecessor arising from defects in the property they had constructed.
Held: The tenant had no right of set off. Muscat established a right where the arrears had arisen during the prior to the assignment of the landlord’s interest. However the 1995 Act operated to leave past rights and obligations with the assignor. A landlord of a tenancy granted after the 1995 Act could not now claim the rent arrears which had accrued before the assignment. Equally, the equitable assignment of the burden of any right of set off was not transmitted.

Judges:

Bean J

Citations:

[2006] 1 All ER 98, Times 04-Nov-2005, [2005] EWHC 2158 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Law of Property Act 1925 141, Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 3 23(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Smith v Muscat CA 10-Jul-2003
The tenant was sued by his landlord for arrears of rent, but sought an equitable set-off for damages for disrepair accruing under the previous landlord.
Held: If the entitlement to recover arrears of rent passes from assignor to assignee, and . .
Cited – British Anzani (Felixstowe) Ltd v International Marine Management (UK) Ltd ChD 19-Dec-1978
Money expended by a tenant on discharging his landlord’s covenants will in appropriate circumstances operate as a partial or a complete discharge so as to furnish a defence at law to a claim for unpaid rent; and where the tenant has suffered damage . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Edlington Properties Limited v J H Fenner and Co Limited CA 22-Mar-2006
The landlord had assigned the reversion of the lease. There was an outstanding dispute with the tenant defendant who owed arrears of rent, but sought to set these off against a claim for damages for the landlord’s failure to construct the factory in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant, Construction

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.234455

Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd: CA 19 Feb 2010

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 139

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Cleveland 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 Also – Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd TCC 5-Jun-2006
. .
See Also – Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another CA 20-Dec-2006
. .
See Also – Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd (No. 2) TCC 31-Jan-2007
. .
See Also – Multiplex 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 Also – Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd (No. 2) TCC 6-Mar-2007
. .
See Also – Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd (No 3) TCC 12-Mar-2007
. .
See Also – 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. . .
See Also – Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another CA 21-Dec-2007
. .
See Also – Multiplex Construction Ltd v Cleveland Bridge Ltd and Another CA 6-Feb-2008
. .
See Also – Multiplex Construction (Uk) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another TCC 7-Feb-2008
. .
See Also – Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another TCC 19-Mar-2008
. .
See Also – Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another TCC 29-Sep-2008
. .
See Also – Multiplex 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 . .

Cited by:

See Also – Cleveland 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: 15 August 2022; Ref: scu.402941

O’Donnell Developments Ltd v Build Ability Ltd: TCC 18 Dec 2009

‘the claimant (ODD) brings a claim against the defendant (BAL) to enforce two adjudication decisions. ODD applied for summary judgment in the sum of andpound;1,229,393.40 inclusive of VAT and interest. BAL originally challenged the appointment of the Adjudicator in the adjudications, contended that the he did not have jurisdiction to make corrections to the decision in one adjudication (Adjudication 8A) and sought a stay of execution of any summary judgment in relation to the adjudication decisions.’

Judges:

Ramsey J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 3388 (TCC), 128 Con LR 141

Links:

Bailii

Construction

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.393364

Bole and Another v Huntsbuild Ltd: CA 15 Jun 2009

Renewed application for leave to appeal.

Judges:

Waller, Carnwath LJJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 770

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Defective Premises Act 1972 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Bole and Another v Huntsbuild Ltd and Another TCC 13-Mar-2009
. .

Cited by:

Leave – Bole and Another v Huntsbuild Ltd CA 20-Oct-2009
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Professional Negligence

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.384116

Bole and Another v Huntsbuild Ltd: CA 20 Oct 2009

Judges:

Pill, Dyson, Longmore LJJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Civ 1146

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Defective Premises Act 1972 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Bole and Another v Huntsbuild Ltd and Another TCC 13-Mar-2009
. .
Leave – Bole and Another v Huntsbuild Ltd CA 15-Jun-2009
Renewed application for leave to appeal. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence, Construction

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.384117

Tate Gallery (Board of Trustees of) v Duffy Construction Ltd and Another: TCC 15 Feb 2007

Judges:

Jackson J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 361 (TCC), [2007] 1 All ER (Comm) 1004, [2007] BLR 216, [2007] Lloyd’s Rep IR 758

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Construction

Updated: 09 August 2022; Ref: scu.249405

Aspen Insurance UK Ltd v Adana Construction Ltd: CA 5 Mar 2015

Citations:

[2015] EWCA Civ 176

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appral from – Aspen Insurance UK Ltd v Adana Construction Ltd ComC 20-Jun-2013
Claim by insurers for a declaration of non liability to which the insured responds seeking declarations that it is covered by the policy and entitled to have its associated defence costs paid. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Aspen Insurance UK Ltd v Adana Construction Ltd (Costs) CA 5-Mar-2015
Post judgment orders for costs and otherwise . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Construction, Negligence

Updated: 08 August 2022; Ref: scu.543886

D and F Estates v Church Commissioners for England: HL 14 Jul 1988

The House considered the liability of main contractors on a construction site for the negligence of it sub-contractors.
Lord Bridge said: ‘It is trite law that the employer of an independent contractor is, in general, not liable for the negligence or other torts committed by the contractor in the course of the execution of the work. To this general rule there are certain well-established exceptions or apparent exceptions. Without enumerating them it is sufficient to say that it was accepted by Mr. Fernyhough on behalf of the present appellants that the instant case could not be accommodated within any of the recognised and established categories by which the exceptions are classified. But it has been rightly said that the so-called exceptions
‘are not true exceptions (at least so far as the theoretical nature of the employer’s liability is concerned) for they are dependent upon a finding that the employer is, himself, in breach of some duty which he personally owes to the plaintiff. The liability is thus not truly a vicarious liability and is to be distinguished from the vicarious liability of a master for his servant:’ see Clerk and Lindsell on Torts, 15th ed.”

Judges:

Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Templeman, Lord Ackner, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle

Citations:

[1988] UKHL 4, [1989] AC 177

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – D and F Estates v Church Commissioners for England CA 1988
The main contractor on the site subcontracted the interior plastering. Fifteen years later, the plasterwork collapsed causing injury. The plasterer had not used the plaster specified.
Held: Appeal allowed. A contractor may have contractual or . .

Cited by:

Cited – Farraj and Another v King’s Healthcare NHS Trust (KCH) and Another CA 13-Nov-2009
The claimant parents each carried a gene making any child they bore liable to suffer a serious condition. On a pregnancy the mother’s blood was sent for testing to the defendants who sent it on to the second defendants. The condition was missed, . .
Cited – Woodland v The Swimming Teachers’ Association and Others QBD 17-Oct-2011
The court was asked as to the vicarious or other liability of a school where a pupil suffered injury at a swimming lesson with a non-employee during school time, and in particular whether it had a non-delegable duty to ensure the welfare of children . .
Cited – Woodland v Essex County Council CA 9-Mar-2012
The claimant had been injured in a swimming pool during a lesson. The lesson was conducted by outside independent contractors. The claimant appealed against a finding that his argument that they had a non-delegable duty of care was bound to fail. . .
Cited – Barclays Bank Plc v Various Claimants SC 1-Apr-2020
The Bank had employed a doctor to provide medical assessments as necessary. The doctor had used the opportunities presented to assault sexually many patients. The court was now asked whether the Bank was vicariously liable for the acts of this . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Negligence, Construction

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.248717

HMRC v SL: UTTC 19 Nov 2009

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

Citations:

[2009] UKUT 244 (TCC), [2010] STC 486, [2010] BVC 1503, [2010] STI 555

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Construction

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.428189

Tyco Fire and Integrated Solutions (UK) Ltd v Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Ltd: CA 2 Apr 2008

Judges:

Rix LJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 286, [2008] 2 All ER (Comm) 584, [2008] Lloyd’s Rep IR 617, 118 Con LR 25, [2008] BLR 285, [2008] 1 CLC 625, [2008] 14 EG 100

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Tyco Fire and Integrated Solutions (UK) Ltd v Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Ltd TCC 29-Jun-2007
Allegation of faults in sprinkler system. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Gard Marine and Energy Ltd v China National Chartering Co Ltd and Others ComC 30-Jul-2013
The vessel ‘Ocean Victory’ grounded in 2006 entering a port in a storm.
Held: In the first action, that the intermediate charterers were liable to the demise charterers for breach of the safe port warranty in the time charter, and likewise, in . .
Mentioned – Gard 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Negligence, Construction

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.266395

Alfred 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 under a deed of covenant entered into for this purpose, and so the main contractor would only be entitled to nominal damages. ‘It would be an extraordinary defect in our law if, where (for example) A enters into a contract with B that B should carry out work for the benefit of a third party, C, A should have no remedy in damages against B if B should perform his contract in a defective manner. Contracts in this form are a commonplace of everyday life.’

Judges:

Lord Clyde Lord Goff of Chieveley Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle Lord Browne-Wilkinson Lord Millett

Citations:

Times 15-Aug-2000, Gazette 05-Oct-2000, [2000] UKHL 43, [2000] 4 All ER 97, [2000] 3 WLR 946, [2001] 1 AC 518

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Dunlop 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 . .
Cited – Woodar Investment Development Ltd v Wimpey Construction UK Ltd HL 14-Feb-1980
Wimpey agreed to buy land from Woodar for a sum of andpound;850,000 of which andpound;150,000 was to be paid to Transworld. A month later Wimpey sent a letter purporting to rescind the contract and Woodar sued for damages including the . .
Cited – Albacruz (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 . .
Cited – Campbell v Tyson IHCS 1840
It was asked whether earlier cases established that the mere contracting for the safe carriage, if made by the consignor, entitled him to sue the carrier for damages, if the carrier failed to perform the duty undertaken by him under that contract. . .
Cited – Davis and Jordan v James 1770
. .
Cited – Joseph v Knox 1813
. .
Cited – The Proprietors of the Cork Distilleries Co v The Directors of the Great Southern and Western Railway Co HL 1874
Ireland – A separate contract between consignor and carrier may co-exist with the contract between the carrier and the consignee. . .
Cited – Seath and Co v Moore HL 1886
In Scotland the risk of loss of a consignment might pass before delivery, but the ownership would not pass until delivery was made. . .
Cited – Great Western Railway Co v Bagge and Co 1885
Where there are separate contracts between consignor and carrier and between the carrier and the consignee, where the risk of loss fell is a matter of contstruction of each contract. . .
Cited – 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: . .
Cited – Hadley v Baxendale Exc 23-Feb-1854
Contract Damages; What follows the Breach Naturaly
The plaintiffs had sent a part of their milling machinery for repair. The defendants contracted to carry it, but delayed in breach of contract. The plaintiffs claimed damages for the earnings lost through the delay. The defendants appealed, saying . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Robinson v Harman 18-Jan-1848
Damages for breach of contract should compensate the victim of the breach for the loss of his contractual bargain. Baron Parke said: ‘The next question is: What damages is the plaintiff entitled to recover? The rule of the common law is, that where . .
Cited – Swain v The Law Society HL 1983
The Solicitors’ Practice Rules had the force of a statute, being rules made by the Council of the Law Society with parliamentary sanction for the protection of that section of the public who might be in need of legal advice, assistance or oversight. . .
Cited – Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co HL 13-Feb-1880
Damages or removal of coal under land
User damages were awarded for the unauthorised removal of coal from beneath the appellant’s land, even though the site was too small for the appellant to have mined the coal himself. The appellant was also awarded damages for the damage done to the . .
Cited – Heyman v Darwins Limited HL 1942
An arbitration clause will survive a repudiatory breach: ‘I agree with the Lord Chancellor in thinking that the true ground of the decision in Jureidini v National British and Irish Millers Insurance Co Ltd was the narrowness of the field of . .
Cited – East Ham Corporation v Bernard Sunley and Sons Ltd HL 1965
In cases in which the plaintiff is seeking damages for the defective performance of a building contract, which is a contract for labour and materials, the normal measure of his damages is the cost of carrying out remedial work, or re-instatement. . .
Cited – 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 – Tito v Waddell (No 2); Tito v Attorney General ChD 1977
Equity applies its doctrines to the substance, not the form, of transactions. In respect of the rule against self dealing for trustees ‘But of course equity looks beneath the surface, and applies its doctrines to cases where, although in form a . .
Cited – Radford v De Froberville 2-Jan-1977
A contract was made for the sale of a plot of land adjoining a house belonging to the plaintiff (the vendor) but occupied by his tenants, under which the defendant (the purchaser) undertook to build a house on the plot and also to erect a wall to a . .
Cited – Waters v The Monarch Fire and Life Assurance Co 1856
The plaintiff must show an insurable interest in goods to make a claim. This will usually means that he is at least either a part-owner or bailee. . .
Cited – The Winkfield 1902
A bailee in possession has a right to recover for loss or damage to his bailor’s goods even though he would have had a good defence to an action by the bailor. . .
Cited – GUS Property Management Ltd v Littlewoods Mail Stores HL 1982
The House referred to a claim for damages falling into ‘some legal black hole.’ . .
Cited – 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. . .
Cited – Jones v Stroud District Council CA 1986
The plaintiffs were unable to prove that they had paid for repair carried out to their building and rendered necessary by the defendants’ negligence.
Held: After referring to the general principle that a plaintiff who seeks to recover damages . .
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 by:

Cited – Smithkline 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 . .
Cited – Smithkline 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 . .
Cited – Gard 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 . .
Cited – SS (Sri Lanka), Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 15-Jun-2018
The court was asked whether, in cases heard by the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) where the credibility of the appellant is in issue, there is a rule that a delay of more than three months between the hearing of oral evidence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Damages

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.131539

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 think, my Lords, that the argument from redundancy is seldom an entirely secure one. The fact is that even in legal documents (or, some might say, especially in legal documents) people often use superfluous words. Sometimes the draftsmanship is clumsy; more often the cause is a lawyer’s desire to be certain that every conceivable point has been covered. One has only to read the covenants in a traditional lease to realise that draftsmen lack inhibition about using too many words. I have no wish to add to the anthology of adverse comments on the drafting of the JCT Standard Form Contract.’ The architect is the agent of the employer. He is a professional man, but can scarcely be called independent.

Judges:

Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Nolan, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead

Citations:

Gazette 17-Jun-1998, Times 08-Jun-1998, [1998] 2 WLR 860, [1998] UKHL 19, [1999] 1 AC 266, [1998] 2 All ER 778

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – GLN (Copenhagen) Southern Ltd v Tunbridge Wells Borough Council CA 27-Aug-2004
Neighbouring plots included covenants to use and not to use the land as cinemas. A proposed development would have used the land which had to be so used as an access for the new cinema proposed. The claimant sought to rely upon the Act to enforce a . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – BOC Group Plc v Centeon Llc and Centeon Bio-Services Inc CA 29-Apr-1999
The court was asked whether a clause in a share sale agreement setting out the payment obligation worked to preclude the purchaser from exercising a right of set-off when the time comes to pay a later instalment of the price.
Held: The appeal . .
Cited – Kennedy v The Information Commissioner and Another CA 12-May-2011
The claimant, a journalist, sought further information from the Charity Commission after the release of three investigations into the ‘Mariam Appeal’ and questions about the source and use of its funds. The Commission replied that it was exempt . .
Cited – LB Holdings Intermediate 2 Ltd, The Joint Administrators of v Lehman Brothers International (Europe), The Joint Administrators of and Others SC 17-May-2017
In the course of the insolvent administration of the bank, substantial additional sums were received. Parties appealed against some orders made on the application to court for directions as to what was to be done with the surplus.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Contract

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.135154

Co-operative Retail Services Ltd v Taylor Young Partnership, Hoare Lea and Partners (a Firm) and Others: CA 4 Jul 2000

A building owner entered into a standard form of building contract for the construction of office premises. Under its terms the contractor was required to take out and maintain a policy in the names of the owner, the contractor and specialist electrical subcontractors, Hall, for all risks insurance covering loss or damage to the works from specified perils including fire. Hall entered into a collateral contract with the owner warranting that it had exercised and would exercise all reasonable care and skill in the design and execution of the sub-contract works. A fire occurred causing extensive damage. The owners sued their architects and mechanical and engineering consultants, who brought third party proceedings against Hall. This raised the question whether Hall was liable to the owners in respect of the fire damage, alleged by the third party claimants to have been caused by Hall’s negligence and breach of warranty.
Held: The appeal failed.

Citations:

[2000] EWCA Civ 207, [2000] BLR 461, [2001] Lloyd’s Ins Law Rep 122

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – Scottish and Newcastle Plc v G D Construction (St Albans) Ltd TCC 29-Mar-2001
The defendant contracted to refurbish premises belonging to the claimant. A fire caused by a sub-contractor caused damage, and the cost was sought from the defendant. He claimed that the standard form contract excluded its liability, including . .
Appeal from – Co-Operative Retail Services Limited and others v Taylor Young Partnership and others HL 25-Apr-2002
Whilst a substantial new building was being constructed, it was damaged by fire caused by the negligence of several contractors. The case concerned apportionment of liability.
Held: The appeal failed. The parties could by agreement vary the . .
Cited – Gard 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Insurance

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.147240

Co-Operative Retail Services Limited and others v Taylor Young Partnership and others: HL 25 Apr 2002

Whilst a substantial new building was being constructed, it was damaged by fire caused by the negligence of several contractors. The case concerned apportionment of liability.
Held: The appeal failed. The parties could by agreement vary the normal rules which would apportion damages. Here one party had been required to assume responsibility for fire damage, and to insure accordingly. That party was not however liable to contribute unless they were ‘liable in respect of’ the fire damage, but section 6(1) could not be read so as to make liable to restore damaged work a person from whom the employer is ‘entitled to recover compensation’ in respect of the fire damage to the works. For 1(1), they were not a person liable in respect of the fire damage to the works and the appellants cannot recover contribution from them.
Where it is agreed that the insurance shall inure to the benefit of both parties to the contract, they cannot claim against each other in respect of an insured loss. This an implied term of the contract of insurance and/or of the underlying contract between the co-insureds pursuant to which their interests were insured.

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

Citations:

[2002] UKHL 17

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 1(1) 6(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Caledonian North Sea Ltd v London Bridge Engineering Ltd and Others HL 7-Feb-2002
Substantial personal injury claims had been settled following the Piper Alpha disaster. Where a contractual indemnity had been provided under a contract, and insurance had also been taken out, but the insurance had not been a contractual . .
Appeal from – Co-operative Retail Services Ltd v Taylor Young Partnership, Hoare Lea and Partners (a Firm) and Others CA 4-Jul-2000
A building owner entered into a standard form of building contract for the construction of office premises. Under its terms the contractor was required to take out and maintain a policy in the names of the owner, the contractor and specialist . .
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 . .

Cited by:

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

Construction, Damages, Negligence

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.171309

Jim Ennis Construction Ltd v Premier Asphalt Ltd: TCC 24 Jul 2009

The court was asked as to the date of accrual of the cause of action where a losing party to an adjudication brought under Part II of the 1996 Act later begins proceedings to seek a final determination of the matters decided by the adjudicator with a view to recovering monies paid to the winning party in compliance with the adjudicator’s decision. ‘The Claimant contends that the cause of action is separate and distinct from the cause of action in respect of the dispute referred to adjudication, and does not arise until the date of payment in compliance with the decision, whereas the Defendant contends that the cause of action is no different from the dispute referred to adjudication and thus arises at the same time as that underlying cause of action.’
Held: There was an implied term of the construction contract that an unsuccessful party to an adjudication was entitled to be repaid all sums paid by it in compliance with an adjudication if they were subsequently decided or agreed not to be due and that the cause of action for such sums accrued at the date of the original payment.

Judges:

HHJ Stephen Davies

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1906 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, Limitation Act 1980

Cited by:

Cited – Aspect Contracts (Asbetos) Ltd v Higgins Construction Plc SC 17-Jun-2015
Aspect had claimed the return of funds paid by it to the appellant Higgins under an adjudication award in a construction contract disute. The claimant had been asked to prpare asbestos surveys and reports on maisonettes which Higgins was to acquire . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Limitation

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.361479

Metropolitan Water Board v Dick Kerr and Co Ltd: HL 26 Nov 1917

In July 1914 the appellants contracted with the respondents, a firm of contractors, for the construction of a reservoir which was to take six years to build. The work was started, but in February 1916 the Minister of Munitions ordered it to cease and requisitioned part of the plant. Work was accordingly stopped, but the appellants claimed that the contract subsisted, and this action was brought to determine the question. Held that the interruption was of such a character and duration as fundamentally to change the conditions of the contract, and could not have been in the contemplation of the parties to the contract when it was made. Accordingly the contract had ceased to be operative.
Upheld

Judges:

Lord Finlay LC, Lord Dunedin

Citations:

[1917] UKHL 2, [1918] AC 119, [1917] UKHL 537, 55 SLR 537

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Distington Hematite Iron Co. v Possehl and Co 1916
Rowlatt J said: ‘War does not create any contract.’ . .
Cited – Baily v De Crespigny QBD 1869
A lessor had covenanted that neither he nor his assigns would build on a piece of land adjoining the demised premises. A railway company, under powers derived from a subsequent private Act, compulsorily acquired the land and erected a station on it. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Islwyn Borough Council and Another v Newport Borough Council CA 28-Jun-1993
Three local authorities disputed whether a contract had been made between them, and if so its terms, as to the financial support of a leisure centre.
Held: Later legislation need not frustrate agreement between the parties.
Hirts LJ said: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Construction

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.265984