Category: Construction

Costello and Another v MacDonald and Others: CA 29 Jul 2011

The provision of services to a company was held not to enrich its directors and shareholders.
In unjust enrichment, a claim for restitution will fail if it undermines the contractual arrangements between the parties. Etherton LJ said: ‘The general rule should be to uphold contractual arrangements by which parties have defined and allocated and, to that extent, restricted their mutual obligations, and, in so doing, have similarly allocated and circumscribed the consequences of non-performance. That general rule reflects a sound legal policy which acknowledges the parties’ autonomy to configure the legal relations between them and provides certainty, and so limits disputes and litigation. The following cases support its application to the present case.’

Judges:

Pill, Etherton, Patten LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 930, [2011] CILL 3081, [2012] 1 All ER (Comm) 357, [2011] BLR 544, [2011] 47 EG 106, [2012] QB 244, 137 Con LR 55, [2011] 3 EGLR 87, [2011] 3 WLR 1341

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction, Company

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.442526

Tom Hudson (HM Inspector of Taxes) v JDC Services Limited: ChD 26 Mar 2004

The taxpayer company had been refused a statutory Construction Industry Scheme certificate. The General Commissioners allowed the company’s appeal and itself issued a certificate. The revenue said the Commissioners had no jurisdiction either to hear an appeal or to issue such a certificate.
Held: The scheme created by the 1971 Act was a special one. A certificate could only be granted where the contractor met the conditions set down in the 1998 Act. The company’s breaches in this case had not been merely technical, and therefore the Commissioners’ decision had been wrong. The court had jurisdiction under the 1070 Act to issue the necessary orders.

Judges:

The Hon Mr Justice Lightman

Citations:

Times 16-Apr-2004, [2004] EWHC 602 (Ch)

Statutes:

Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 561(9), Finance Act 1971 29 30, Taxes Management Act 1970 56(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Lothbury Investment Corporation Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners 1979
The taxpayer company was a non-trading company owing shareholders substantial sums. Rather than pay dividends it waived dividends it held in a public company, and the shareholder waived interest on the loans. The IR apportioned the income of the . .
Cited – Regina on the Application of Dart Harbour and Navigation Authority v the Secretary of State for Transport Local Government and the Regions QBD 26-Jun-2003
Captain Wyatt owned land near the harbour and wanted to moor his boat by it. The Harbour authority said he needed a licence. The Harbour authority requested him to move the boat as a danger to navigation. The Captain sought a judicial review of the . .
Cited – Colpitt v Australian Communications 1986
The word ‘review’ means a rehearing which may pronounce anew the rights of the parties. . .
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.

Income Tax, Construction, Taxes Management

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.194993

Fitzroy Robinson Ltd v Mentmore Towers Ltd: TCC 7 Jul 2009

Judges:

Coulson J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1552 (TCC), [2009] NPC 90, [2009] BLR 505, 125 Con LR 171

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Martin v David Wilson Homes Ltd CA 28-Jun-2004
The court considered the construction of a restrictive covenant, and was asked whether an indefinite article ‘a private dwellinghouse’ was to be construed as a limitation of number or whether it was to be construed as being as to the manner of use. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Fitzroy Robinson Ltd v Mentmore Towers Ltd TCC 21-Dec-2009
Claim by architects for professional fees, with cross allegations and claims of fraudulent misrepresentation. The main issues having been resolved the court now considered the quantum of damages. . .
See Also – Fitzroy Robinson Ltd v Mentmore Towers Ltd TCC 26-Jan-2010
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.347464

AMEC Group Ltd v Universal Steels (Scotland) Ltd: TCC 25 Mar 2009

The claimant sought an interlocutory injunction to require the defendant to deliver up Quality Assurance documentation.

Judges:

Coulson J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 560 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Nottingham Building Society v Eurodynamics Systems plc 1993
The court laid down tests for the granting of mandatory interim injunctions. The court should consider whether there was a high degree of confidence that the applicant would succeed in establishing his right at trial. The higher that confidence, the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Litigation Practice

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.324692

Shaw and Another v Massey Foundation and Pilings Ltd: TCC 12 Mar 2009

The appellants had argued that they were not subject to the construction arbitration system because they were residential occupiers. They now said that as consumers vis a vis the construction contract.

Judges:

Coulson J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 493 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

The Housing Grants (Construction and Regeneration) Act 1996 106

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Lovell Projects Ltd v Legg and Carver 2003
The court was asked whether the regulations applied to a construction contract. . .
Cited – Domsalla (T/A Domsalla Building Services) v Dyason TCC 4-May-2007
A consumer has no grounds for complaining about the construction adjudication process per se under the Regulations . .
Cited – Carillion Construction Ltd v Devonport Royal Dockyard Ltd CA 16-Nov-2005
The parties had disputed payments for subcontracting work on a major project. The matter had been referred to arbitration, and the claimants now appealed refusal of leave to appeal the adjudicator’s award.
Held: The dispute was complex and . .
Cited – Collier v Williams and others CA 25-Jan-2006
Various parties appealed refusal and grant of extensions of time for service of claim forms.
Held: The court gave detailed guidance. The three central issues were the proper construction of the rule, the question of whether the court could . .
Cited – Kier Regional Ltd (T/A Wallis) v City and General (Holborn) Ltd and others TCC 17-Oct-2008
kier_cityTCC2008
The claimant sought to make final an interim third party debt order. The defendants sought a stay of the enforcement. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.324693

Funnell and Another v Adams and Remer (A Partnership): QBD 28 Sep 2007

The claimants alleged that the defendants, their solicitors had been negligent in handling a commercial lease. That being accepted, the court considered the measure of damages.

Judges:

Wilkie J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2166 (QB), [2008] BLR 206, 119 Con LR 193

Links:

Bailii

Construction, Damages, Negligence

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.296296

Seele Austria Gmbh Co v Tokio Marine Europe Insurance Ltd: TCC 17 Feb 2009

There will rarely be a finding of abuse of process without the court deeming the subsequent claim to amount to unjust harassment or oppression.

Judges:

Coulson J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 255 (TCC), [2009] BLR 261

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Campbell v Leeds United Association Football Misc 3-Apr-2009
The claimant sought damages for psychiatric injury suffered when working for the defendant who replied that the matter had already been litigated in her claims in the Employment Tribunal, and that a cause of action estoppel applied.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Construction, Estoppel

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.291788

William Hare Ltd v Shepherd Construction Ltd: TCC 25 Jun 2009

The court considered the operation of a ‘pay when paid’ clause.

Judges:

Coulson J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1603 (TCC), [2009] BLR 447, 125 Con LR 123, [2009] CILL 2753, [2010] BCC 332

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Grants (Construction and Regeneration) Act 1996 113(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction, Contract

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.347462

Siemens Building Technologies Fe Ltd v Supershield Ltd: TCC 1 May 2009

The parties to a construction contract disputed responsibility for a valve which had failed leading to a flood and associated damages.

Judges:

Ramsey J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 927 (TCC), [2009] 2 All ER (Comm) 900, [2009] TCLR 7, [2009] CILL 2723, (2009) 124 Con LR 158

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction, Contract

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.347148

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 statutory duty to supervise, but not necessarily in tort. A main contractor will not have responsibility in tort for failure to supervise the acts of a sub-contractor where it would be unreasonable to expect him to provide supervision.

Citations:

[1988] 2 All ER 992, [1987] CLY 3582, [1987] 1 FTLR 405

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Boyland and Son Ltd v Rand CA 20-Dec-2006
The defendant travellers occupied land belonging to the claimants. A possession order had been obtained, and the defendants now sought a reasonable time to be allowed to leave.
Held: The law had not changed, and section 89 could not be used to . .
Appeal from – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Torts – Other

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.185189

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 the permission of his employer to do so. A consultant in that situation must either decline the work, advise the client to obtain expert advice for that particular part of the work or engage an expert itself whilst retaining all responsibility to the client.

Judges:

Sir Walker Carter OR

Citations:

[1966] 2 Lloyds Rep 338, (1966) 4 BLR 50

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Construction, Professional Negligence

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.185194

John Kerr Roofing Contractors v The Commissioners for Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 20 Feb 2013

FTTTX INCOME TAX – Construction Industry Scheme – Appeal against cancellation of registration for gross payment – ‘Compliance test’ – Whether there was a reasonable excuse on the facts – No – Failure to take account of cancellation on appellant – JP Whitter (Waterwell Engineers) Ltd v HMRC [2012] UKFTT 278 (TC) applied – Appeal allowed

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 135 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – J P Whitter (Waterwell Engineers) Ltd v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 18-Oct-2012
FTTTxp INCOME TAX – construction industry scheme – cancellation of gross payment status – s66 Finance Act 2004 – HMRC discretion – whether properly exercised – Failure to take into account effect of cancellation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax, Construction

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.472358

Evans Marshall and Co Ltd v Bertola SA: CA 1973

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

Judges:

Sachs, Edmund Davies and Cairns LJJ

Citations:

[1973] 1 WLR 349

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Damages, Construction

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.266304

Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another: TCC 29 Sep 2008

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2280 (TCC), 122 Con LR 88

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
. .

Cited by:

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 . .
See Also – Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd CA 19-Feb-2010
. .
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

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.277752

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 opinion it should be held in the light of these authorities that in certifying or acting under Clause 13 here the Engineer, though not bound to act judicially in the ordinary sense, was bound to act fairly and impartially. Duties expressed in terms of fairness are being recognised in other fields of law also, such as immigration. Fairness is a broad and even elastic concept, but it is not altogether the worse for that. In relation to persons bound to act judicially fairness requires compliance with the rules of natural justice. In other cases this is not necessarily so.’

Judges:

Cooke J

Citations:

(1979) 16 BLR 76

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – 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 . .

Cited by:

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

Construction

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.224305

Reinwood Ltd v L Brown and Sons Ltd: CA 17 Oct 2008

The court was asked whether a contractor under a particular building contract was entitled to determine the contract and walk away, or whether such behaviour amounted to a repudiation entitling the main contractor to damages.

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 1090

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Reinwood Ltd v L Brown and Sons Ltd CA 21-Jun-2007
. .
See Also – Reinwood Ltd v L Brown and Sons Ltd HL 20-Feb-2008
The employer received a notice of non-completion from his architect, and in turn served a notice on the contractor under section 111, and deducted damages for non-completion from the next payment. The contractor said this was not allowed because the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276976

Biffa Waste Services Ltd and Another v Maschinenfabrik Ernst Hese Gmbh and others: TCC 19 Sep 2008

Claim for damages after fire occuring during construction of waste plant.

Judges:

Ramsey J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2210 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Biffa Waste Services Ltd and Another v Maschinenfabrik Ernst Hese Gmbh and others TCC 11-Jan-2008
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Biffa Waste Services Ltd and Another v Maschinenfabrik Ernst Hese Gmbh and others TCC 31-Oct-2008
. .
See Also – Biffa Waste Services Ltd and Another v Maschinenfabrik Ernst Hese Gmbh and others CA 12-Nov-2008
The defendant contracted to build a plant for the claimant. The plant was damaged by a fire caused by the defendant’s independent sub-contractor. The defendant appealed against the finding that it was responsible for the sub-contractor’s failure. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276493

Fitzpatrick Contractors Ltd v Tyco Fire and Integrated Solutions (UK) Ltd: TCC 25 Jul 2008

Pre-trial hearing on matter preparatory to substantial trial of construction dispute.

Judges:

Coulson J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1927 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Fitzpatrick Contractors Ltd v Tyco Fire and Integrated Solutions (UK) Ltd (Prelinary Issues) TCC 13-Jun-2008
. .
See Also – Fitzpatrick Contractors Ltd v Tyco Fire and Integrated Solutions (UK) Ltd TCC 13-Jun-2008
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Fitzpatrick Contractors Ltd v Tyco Fire and Integrated Solutions (UK) Ltd TCC 20-Feb-2009
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.276491

Price and Another v Revenue and Customs: VDT 4 Jun 2008

VDT VAT – DIY BUILDERS SCHEME – Appellant received supplies of granite blocks and haulage services – VAT refund refused on the supplies of haulage services – satisfied that haulage services were separate supplies of services – Appellant not entitled to a refund of VAT on supplies of services – Appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2008] UKVAT V20700

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Construction

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.272972

Galliford Try Infrastructure Ltd and Another v Mott Macdonald Ltd: TCC 17 Jul 2008

The court was asked whether the implication of terms into a written contract implied that it was not a contract in writing under ection 107. HHJ Seymour QC said: ‘it may be necessary to consider carefully the effect of s. 107 of the 1996 Act as interpreted by the Court of Appeal in RJT . . in a case in which it is found that an alleged agreement which has been performed can be completed so as to result in a binding contract by some such implication of terms as was postulated by Steyn LJ in G Percy Trentham Ltd v Archital Luxfer Ltd . . The Court of Appeal did not expressly consider what the position would be if a contract included terms which were to be implied . . It may be that the mischief which Parliament was anxious to avoid does not arise in a case in which terms fall to be implied into a contract as a matter of law, regardless of the actual intention of the parties. However, it could arise in an acute form if it were suggested that a contract, not otherwise complete, could be completed after it had been executed by the implication of terms which were said [to] represent the actual, but unexpressed, intention of the parties.’

Judges:

HHJ Seymour QC

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1570 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 107

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Allen Wilson Joinery Ltd v Privetgrange Construction Ltd TCC 17-Nov-2008
The claimant sought summary judgment to enforce an arbitration award in a construction dispute. The defendants argued that the contract was not sufficiently evidenced in writing to accord with the 1996 Act. The claimants replied that any oral . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Contract

Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.272321

LSREF III Wight Ltd v Millvalley Ltd: ComC 8 Mar 2016

Citations:

[2016] EWHC 466 (Comm), 165 Con LR 58

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – FSHC Group Holdings Ltd v Glas Trust Corporation Ltd CA 31-Jul-2019
Rectification – Chartbrook not followed
Opportunity for an appellate court to clarify the correct test to apply in deciding whether the written terms of a contract may be rectified because of a common mistake.
Held: The appeal failed. The judge was right to conclude that an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Construction

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.560755

Bole and Another v Huntsbuild Ltd and Another: TCC 13 Mar 2009

Judges:

Toulmin QC HHJ

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 483 (TCC), 124 Con LR 1, [2009] CILL 2697

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Defective Premises Act 1972 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Bole and Another v Huntsbuild Ltd CA 15-Jun-2009
Renewed application for leave to appeal. . .
Appeal from – Bole and Another v Huntsbuild Ltd CA 20-Oct-2009
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence, Construction

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.317991

Fitzpatrick Contractors Ltd v Tyco Fire and Integrated Solutions (UK) Ltd (Prelinary Issues): TCC 13 Jun 2008

Judges:

Coulson J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1301 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Fitzpatrick Contractors Ltd v Tyco Fire and Integrated Solutions (UK) Ltd TCC 13-Jun-2008
. .
Cited – Martin v David Wilson Homes Ltd CA 28-Jun-2004
The court considered the construction of a restrictive covenant, and was asked whether an indefinite article ‘a private dwellinghouse’ was to be construed as a limitation of number or whether it was to be construed as being as to the manner of use. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Fitzpatrick Contractors Ltd v Tyco Fire and Integrated Solutions (UK) Ltd TCC 25-Jul-2008
Pre-trial hearing on matter preparatory to substantial trial of construction dispute. . .
See Also – Fitzpatrick Contractors Ltd v Tyco Fire and Integrated Solutions (UK) Ltd TCC 20-Feb-2009
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270344

Fitzpatrick Contractors Ltd v Tyco Fire and Integrated Solutions (UK) Ltd: TCC 13 Jun 2008

Judges:

Coulson J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1391 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Fitzpatrick Contractors Ltd v Tyco Fire and Integrated Solutions (UK) Ltd (Prelinary Issues) TCC 13-Jun-2008
. .
See Also – Fitzpatrick Contractors Ltd v Tyco Fire and Integrated Solutions (UK) Ltd TCC 25-Jul-2008
Pre-trial hearing on matter preparatory to substantial trial of construction dispute. . .
See Also – Fitzpatrick Contractors Ltd v Tyco Fire and Integrated Solutions (UK) Ltd TCC 20-Feb-2009
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270343

Robert Cunningham Catherine Good Gelande Corp. Ltd. v Collett and Farmer (A Firm): QBD 9 Feb 2006

The claimants sought damages for professional negligence against their architects in connection with the management of works of construction.

Judges:

His Honour Peter Coulson Q.C.

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 148 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Professional Negligence, Construction

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.239907

Tesco Stores Ltd v Constable and others: CA 16 Apr 2008

Tesco voluntarily agreed to indemnify a third party for economic loss. When that third party claimed under the indemnity for economic losses arising out of damage to property of another, Tesco sought to claim under its own public liability insurance covering ‘all sums for which the Insured shall be liable at law for damages in respect of . . loss of damage to material property.’
Held: Tesco’s appeal failed.
Tuckey LJ said: ‘A public liability policy provides cover against liability to the public at large. By contrast private liability arises from contracts entered into between individuals. Public liability in this sense arises in tort; it does not and cannot arise only in contract. As a general rule a claim in tort cannot be founded upon pure economic loss. So the judge was right to say that the fact that this was public liability insurance was important and that such policies do not generally cover liability in contract for pure economic loss. It is a strong pointer to the meaning of the words used. ‘

Judges:

Tuckey, Thomas and Hughes LJJ

Citations:

[2008] EWCA Civ 362

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Tesco Stores Ltd. v Constable and others Comc 14-Sep-2007
The defendants provided insurance for the claimant to construct a train tunnel over which the claimant would build a supermarket. The tunnel collapsed, and the railway operator claimed for loss of revenues. The insurers denied responsibility saying . .

Cited by:

Cited – Bedfordshire Police Authority v Constable and others ComC 20-Jun-2008
The authority insured its primary liability for compensation under the 1886 Act through the claimants and the excess of liability through re-insurers. The parties sought clarification from the court of the respective liabilities of the insurance . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Insurance

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.267169

Herschel Engineering Ltd v Breen Property Ltd: TCC 14 Apr 2000

‘This application raises a short but important issue as to the propriety of a reference to adjudication pursuant to section 108 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (‘the 1996 Act’) of a dispute which, at the time of the reference, is already the subject of pending court proceedings. It is contended on behalf of the defendant that in such circumstances it is not open to a party to refer a dispute to adjudication, and that any decision which an adjudicator purports to make should not be enforced by the court. The claimant seeks to obtain summary judgment under Part 24 of the CPR of the sums which the adjudicator decided were due to it. ‘

Judges:

Dyson J

Citations:

[2000] EWHC Technology 178, 70 Con LR 1, [2000] BLR 272

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction, Arbitration

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266721

Daejan Investments Ltd v The Park West Club Ltd. (Part 20 Buxton Associates: TCC 3 Nov 2003

Application to amend pleadings to substitute pleaded requirement to complete construction.

Judges:

David Wilcox J

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 2872 (TCC), [2004] BLR 223

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Construction

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266718