Category: Construction

NP Intergrated Technology Ltd v Graham and Kay Entwistle: TCC 7 Jun 2017

Judgment following a trial of a claim and a counterclaim concerning work undertaken by the claimant company in connection with the supply and installation of an integrated technology system (ITS) at the defendants’ house.

Judges:

Stephen Davies HHJ

Citations:

[2017] EWHC B21 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.589006

Russell and Another v Stone (T/A PSP Consultants) and Others: TCC 29 Jun 2017

The claimants sought almost 2.2 million pounds in damages against the defendants arising out of the defendants’ quantity surveying and project management services in respect of extensive building works carried out at the claimants’ property in North London. It is the defendants’ case that the relevant defendant is the first defendant, and the claimants’ primary case is to the same effect. Save where relevant, I shall refer to them generically as ‘the defendants’.

Judges:

Coulson J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1555 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction, Professional Negligence

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.589008

Sutton Housing Partnership Ltd v Rydon Maintenance Ltd: CA 18 May 2017

Appeal by the employer under a construction contract against the dismissal of their claim for a declaration. The principal issue is whether the figures set out for minimum acceptable performance in three tables headed ‘example’ are contractually binding or merely illustrative.

Judges:

Jackson, Beatson LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 359

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction

Updated: 26 March 2022; Ref: scu.583972

JFS (UK) Limited v South West Water Services Limited: TCC 22 Apr 1998

Citations:

[1998] EWHC Technology 327

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – JFS (UK) Limited, Tilghman Wheelabrator Limited v Dwr Cymru Cyf TCC 3-Mar-1998
This was an application by the defendant to amend its defence and to add a counterclaim. In considering the application, it had to be decided whether the defendant had already served a counterclaim since, if it had not, it was entitled to add the . .
Appealed to – JFS (UK) Limited Tilghman Wheelabrator Limited v Dwr Cymru Cyf CA 18-Sep-1998
A positive averment by defendant short of a claim for relief did not constitute a ‘claim’ under the section, and the judge had jurisdiction to allow a later amendment claiming relief as an original counterclaim. It was not barred either under RSC 20 . .

Cited by:

See Also – JFS (UK) Limited, Tilghman Wheelabrator Limited v Dwr Cymru Cyf TCC 3-Mar-1998
This was an application by the defendant to amend its defence and to add a counterclaim. In considering the application, it had to be decided whether the defendant had already served a counterclaim since, if it had not, it was entitled to add the . .
App4eal from – JFS (UK) Limited Tilghman Wheelabrator Limited v Dwr Cymru Cyf CA 18-Sep-1998
A positive averment by defendant short of a claim for relief did not constitute a ‘claim’ under the section, and the judge had jurisdiction to allow a later amendment claiming relief as an original counterclaim. It was not barred either under RSC 20 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Arbitration

Updated: 25 March 2022; Ref: scu.135895

Anns and Others v Merton London Borough Council: HL 12 May 1977

The plaintiff bought her apartment, but discovered later that the foundations were defective. The local authority had supervised the compliance with Building Regulations whilst it was being built, but had failed to spot the fault. The authority appealed a finding that it was liable, arguing that the claims were time barred and that it had owed no duty beyond its statutory duty.
Held: As a public body, the defendant’s powers and duties were defined in public not private law. Any distinction between the powers and duties of a local authority fell to be considered in that context. The authority should at least have considered whether to inspect the foundations, and if it did inspect, to do so with care. The authority could not protect itself entirely, simply by failing to carry out any inspection at all. A duty of care might exist at common law, and whether it did so did not depend upon whether the statute imposed a duty or a power to inspect. The cause of action arose at the time when the condition of the building suggested some fault, and time did not begin to run until this happened. The action was not statute barred.
Lord Wilberforce attempted to lay down an approach which could be applied in all situations in order to determine the existence of a duty of care. That approach has two stages: first, it was necessary to decide whether there was a prima facie duty of care, based on the foreseeability of harm, and secondly, in order to place limits on the breadth of the first stage, it was necessary to consider whether there were reasons of public policy for excluding or restricting any such prima facie duty.

Judges:

Lord Wilberforce, Lord Diplock, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, Lord Salmon and Lord Russell of Killowen

Citations:

[1978] AC 728, [1977] CLY 2030, [1977] 2 All ER 492, [1977] UKHL 4

Links:

lip, Bailii

Statutes:

Public Health Act 1936

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Doubted – East Suffolk Rivers Catchment Board v Kent HL 1941
An exceptionally high spring tide caused many breaches of the banks of the River Deben, and extensive flooding, including the respondent’s farm. By section 6 of the 1930 Act, the appellants had a statutory power to maintain the flood defences, but . .
Cited – Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office HL 6-May-1970
A yacht was damaged by boys who had escaped from the supervision of prison officers in a nearby Borstal institution. The boat owners sued the Home Office alleging negligence by the prison officers.
Held: Any duty of a borstal officer to use . .
Cited – Dutton v Bognor Regis Urban District Council CA 1972
The court considered the liability in negligence of a Council whose inspector had approved a building which later proved defective.
Held: The Council had control of the work and with such control came a responsibility to take care in . .
Cited – Hedley Byrne and Co Ltd v Heller and Partners Ltd HL 28-May-1963
Banker’s Liability for Negligent Reference
The appellants were advertising agents. They were liable themselves for advertising space taken for a client, and had sought a financial reference from the defendant bankers to the client. The reference was negligent, but the bankers denied any . .

Cited by:

Considered – Stovin v Wise (Norfolk City Council, 3rd party) CA 16-Feb-1994
A road user was injured on a corner which was known to the highway authority to be dangerous. The authority had sought to make arrangements with the owner of land adjoining the highway to remove a bank which obstructed the view.
Held: The . .
Overruled – 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 – Bellefield Computer Services Limited, Unigate Properties Limited; Unigate Dairies Limited; Unigate (Uk) Limited; Unigate Dairies (Western) Limited v E Turner and Sons Limited Admn 28-Jan-2000
The Defendant builders constructed a steel building to be used as, inter alia. a dairy. The original owners sold it to the appellants. A fire spread from the storage area to the rest of the dairy and caused much damage. The Builders, had they . .
Cited – Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire HL 28-Apr-1987
No General ty of Care Owed by Police
The mother of a victim of the Yorkshire Ripper claimed in negligence against the police alleging that they had failed to satisfy their duty to exercise all reasonable care and skill to apprehend the perpetrator of the murders and to protect members . .
Cited – Hughes v National Union of Mineworkers QBD 1991
The court struck out as disclosing no cause of action a claim by a police officer who was injured while policing the miners’ strike and who alleged that the police officer in charge had deployed his men negligently.
Held: The officer in charge . .
Cited – Walker v Northumberland County Council QBD 16-Nov-1994
The plaintiff was a manager within the social services department. He suffered a mental breakdown in 1986, and had four months off work. His employers had refused to provide the increased support he requested. He had returned to work, but again, did . .
Applied – Tate and Lyle Industries Ltd v Greater London Council HL 24-Mar-1983
The plaintiff had constructed and used two jetties, and dredged a channel down to the Thames for their use. The Council constructed two terminals nearby, the result of which was to cause a build up of silt blocking the channel.
Held: The . .
Followed – Junior Books v Veitchi Co Ltd HL 15-Jul-1982
The defendant was a specialist sub-contractor brought in to lay a floor. In laying the composition floor the defenders used too wet a mixture and applied too thin a top coat and failed to cure the material properly. As a result cracks began to . .
Cited – Yianni v Edwin Evans and Sons ChD 1981
The respondent valuers reported to a building society that a property would be a sufficient security. The purchaser relied on that report to purchase the property, ignoring the advice in the lender’s form to obtain a full survey. The property was . .
Cited – Peabody Donation Fund v Sir Lindsay Parkinson and Co Ltd HL 18-Oct-1983
Architects proposed a system of flexible drains for a site, but the contractors persuaded them to accept rigid drains which once laid proved inadequate at considerable cost. The local authority had permitted the departure from the plans.
Held: . .
Distinguished – Curran v Northern Ireland Co-Ownership Housing Association HL 1987
The claimant bought a property. The previous owner had had it refurbished with a grant, but it now appeared that that work had been defective. He sought damages in negligence from the defendant grant paying authority for having paid out the full . .
Cited – A and Another v Essex County Council CA 17-Dec-2003
The claimant sought damages. The respondent had acted as an adoption agency but had failed to disclose all relevant information about the child.
Held: Any such duty extended only during the period where the child was with the prospective . .
Cited – Binod Sutradhar v Natural Environment Research Council CA 20-Feb-2004
The defendant council had carried out research into a water supply in India in the 1980s. The claimant drank the water, and claimed damages for having consumed arsenic in it.
Held: There is a close link between the tests in law for proximity . .
Cited – Gorringe v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council HL 1-Apr-2004
Statutory Duty Not Extended by Common Law
The claimant sought damages after a road accident. The driver came over the crest of a hill and hit a bus. The road was not marked with any warning as to the need to slow down.
Held: The claim failed. The duty could not be extended to include . .
Cited – Regina v Lam and Others (T/a ‘Namesakes of Torbay’) and Borough of Torbay CA 30-Jul-1997
The claimant sought damages after the planning authority allowed the first defendant to conduct a manufacturing business in the course of which spraying activities took place which caused them personal injuries and loss of business.
Held: The . .
Cited – HM Customs and Excise v Barclays Bank Plc HL 21-Jun-2006
The claimant had served an asset freezing order on the bank in respect of one of its customers. The bank paid out on a cheque inadvertently as to the order. The Commissioners claimed against the bank in negligence. The bank denied any duty of care. . .
Cited – CBS Songs Ltd v Amstrad Consumer Electronics Plc HL 12-May-1988
The plaintiffs as representatives sought to restrain Amstrad selling equipment with two cassette decks without taking precautions which would reasonably ensure that their copyrights would not be infringed by its users.
Held: Amstrad could only . .
Applied – Yuen Kun-Yeu v Attorney-General of Hong Kong PC 1987
(Hong Kong) The claimant deposited money with a licensed deposit taker, regulated by the Commissioner. He lost his money when the deposit taker went into insolvent liquidation. He said the regulator was responsible when it should have known of the . .
Cited – Michael and Others v The Chief Constable of South Wales Police and Another SC 28-Jan-2015
The claimants asserted negligence in the defendant in failing to provide an adequate response to an emergency call, leading, they said to the death of their daughter at the hands of her violent partner. They claimed also under the 1998 Act. The . .
Cited – Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police SC 8-Feb-2018
Limits to Police Exemption from Liability
The claimant, an elderly lady was bowled over and injured when police were chasing a suspect through the streets. As they arrested him they fell over on top of her. She appealed against refusal of her claim in negligence.
Held: Her appeal . .
Cited – Poole Borough Council v GN and Another SC 6-Jun-2019
This appeal is concerned with the liability of a local authority for what is alleged to have been a negligent failure to exercise its social services functions so as to protect children from harm caused by third parties. The principal question of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Negligence, Limitation, Local Government

Leading Case

Updated: 11 February 2022; Ref: scu.174314

Hounslow London Borough Council v Twickenham Gardens Development Limited: 1971

The defendant, a building contractor, had been allowed into occupation of a site owned by the plaintiff council under a building contract. The council had sought to determine the contract by notice under its terms. The contractor refused to vacate the site. The council brought proceedings for injunctions restraining the contractor from ‘entering, remaining or otherwise trespassing’ on the site.
Held: The court rejected a submission that a certifying architect was obliged to act in accordance with the principles of natural justice. He was obliged to retain his independence in exercising his judgment, but, unless the contract so provides, he need not go further and observe rules of natural justice. For the rules of natural justice to apply, there must be something in the nature of a judicial situation, and this was not the case with the architect. The court considered whether a licensee who is in actual occupation may have the protection of the law of trespass against intruders. Megarry J: ‘in recent years it has been established that a person who has no more than a licence may yet have possession of the land.’ and ‘The contractor is in de facto control of the site, and whether or not that control amounts in law to possession, the injunction would in effect expel the contractor from the site and enable the borough to re-assert its rights of ownership. ‘ The court considered a submission that the contractor was in possession of the site – in which case the injunctions sought would, clearly, have been inappropriate: ‘I do not think that I have to decide these or a number of other matters relating to possession. First, I am not at all sure that the matter is determined by the language of the contract. It is in a standard form [containing R.I.B.A. conditions], and may be used in a wide variety of circumstances. In some the building owner may be in manifest possession of the site, and may remain so, despite the building operations. In others, the building owner may de facto, at all events, exercise no rights of possession or control, but leave the contractor in sole and undisputed control of the site. Second, in recent years it has become established that a person who has no more than a licence may yet have possession of the land. Though one of the badges of a tenancy or other interest in land, possession is not necessarily denied to a licensee.’

Judges:

Megarry J

Citations:

[1971] 1 Ch 233, [1970] 3 WLR 538, [1970] 3 All ER 326

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Panamena Europea Navigacion v Frederick Leyland and Co HL 1947
The parties had entered into an agreement providing for arbitration of any disputes. Lord Thankerton said: ‘By entering into the contract the respondents agreed that the appellant’s surveyor should discharge both these duties and therefore they . .

Cited 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 . .
Cited – Manchester Airport Plc v Dutton and others CA 23-Feb-1999
The claimant sought an order requiring delivery of possession of land occupied by the respondent objectors. They needed to remove trees from the land in order to construct a runway on their own adjacent land. The claimant had been granted a licence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Arbitration, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.224304

Scottish Equitable Plc v Miller Construction Ltd: IHCS 31 Aug 2001

The parties entered into a contract for the demolition and building of offices. They sought to refer differences to arbitration. The issue as to whether the long or short prescription period operated so as to time bar some parts of the claim.
Held: Time began to run only from the time of the issue of the final certificate, and accordingly claims which might have been asserted at earlier times in the execution of the contract were not time barred.

Judges:

Lord Prosser, Lord Milligan, Lord Kingarth

Citations:

[2001] ScotCS 214, [2001] ScotHC 96

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1972 3, Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 6, Sch 1, Scottish Building Contract (with Quantities) January 1988

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Construction, Limitation, Arbitration

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.166511

Redman v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 24 Feb 2017

(Vat – Builders : Do -It-Yourself) VALUE ADDED TAX – DIY Housebuilders Scheme – construction of new build house – whether designed as a dwelling for purposes of subsection (35)(1A)(a) and Note (2)(c) to Group 5 of Schedule 8 to VAT Act 1994 – whether Section 75 agreement amounted to a prohibition – yes – appeal refused

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 199 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Construction

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.578536

Schotten and Hansen (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 28 Feb 2017

FTTTx (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Sub-Contractors In The Construction Industry) ONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY SCHEME – penalties – late filing of returns – one foreign sub-contractor – whether reasonable excuse – reliance on accountant – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 191 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax, Construction

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.578541

Taylor Wimpey Plc v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 7 Feb 2017

VAT – Builder’s Block restricting deduction of input tax for certain items on a supply of a new dwelling – whether block, or further restrictions from 1984 and 1987, unlawful under EU law – meaning of ‘incorporates . . in any part of the building or its site’ – meaning of ‘ordinarily installed by builders as fixtures’.

Citations:

[2017] UKUT 34 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Construction

Updated: 04 February 2022; Ref: scu.577819

Carillion Construction Ltd v Emcor Engineering Services Ltd and Another: CA 10 Feb 2017

Appeal by a main contractor against a decision on preliminary issues concerning delay and extension of time. The central issue is whether any extension of time granted under the standard ‘DOM/2’ form of sub-contract must commence on what was previously the due date for completion.

Judges:

Jackson, Simon, Flaux LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 65

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.574292

Swindell v Revenue and Customs (VAT – Builders : Do -It-Yourself): FTTTx 1 Feb 2017

FTTTx VAT – DIY self-build scheme – section 35A VATA94 and note 2(c) to Group 5, Schedule 8 VATA94 – whether the separate disposal of the dwelling was prohibited by the terms of a covenant under section 106 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 – terms of covenant considered – held they prohibit a separate disposal of the dwelling – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 132 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.574084

Williams v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 21 Dec 2016

FTTTx (Vat – Exempt Supplies : Buildings) VAT – Zero-rating – Schedule 8 to VAT Act 1994 – Note 2(d) to Group 5 – Construction of new build home – building designed as a dwelling – retrospective planning permission – whether planning permission granted at the time of supply – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 846 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.574015

Maypine Construction Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 19 Dec 2016

FTTTx (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Sub-Contractors In The Construction Industry) INCOME TAX – CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY SCHEME – Regulation 9 CIS Regulations – failure to take reasonable care – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 833 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax, Construction

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573996

Smith v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 24 Nov 2016

FTTTx (Vat – Diy Housebuilders’ Scheme) VAT – DIY housebuilders’ scheme – VAT charged at 17.5% – VAT refunded at 5% – correct level of refund -unjust enrichment – HELD – VAT refundable at 17.5% for earlier periods – unjust enrichment – outside jurisdiction – appeal allowed in part.

Citations:

[2016] UKFTT 783 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Construction

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573959

ASM (Refurbishments and Decorators) Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 12 Dec 2016

FTTTx (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Sub-Contractors In The Construction Industry) CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY SCHEME – fixed and tax geared penalties – late filing of returns – whether reasonable excuse – no – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2016] UKFTT 822 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax, Construction

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573967

Surrey and Sussex Healthcare Nhs Trust v Logan Construction (South East) Ltd: TCC 13 Jan 2017

Applications for declarations as to the invalidity of an alleged Interim Payment Notice and the validity of an alleged Pay Less Notice.

Judges:

Alexander Nisses QC

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 17 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction, Contract

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.573408

Lalana Hans Place Ltd v Michael Barclay Partnership Llp: TCC 13 Jan 2017

Application by the defendant, dated 6 January 2017, that the claimant be required to answer a request for further information, going to the advice given by the claimant’s expert at the time the decision was taken to undertake remedial work.

Judges:

Coulson J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 29 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.573404

Heronslea Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 3 Feb 2011

Date of delivery of return – Construction Industry Scheme – penalty for late delivery of return – no certificate of posting – whether return deemed to be delivered in the ordinary course of post – yes – whether return delivered late – no – appeal allowed.

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 102 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax, Construction

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.442871

STC SpA v Commission, CPL Concordia Soc. Coop: ECFI 1 Dec 2016

ECJ Order – Public works contracts – Procedure for tender – Construction of a trigeneration plant with a gas turbine and related service – Rejection of a tender – Withdrawal of contested measure – No -Place the proceedings

ECLI:EU:T:2016:705, [2016] EUECJ T-355/14 – CO
Bailii
European

Construction

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572613

Harding (T/A MJ Harding Building Contractors) v Paice and Another: TCC 15 Apr 2014

Application by the Claimant for summary judgment against the Defendants in relation to two adjudication decisions under which a total sum of andpound;269,917.86 is claimed, together with further interest and costs.

Ramset J
[2014] EWHC 4819 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Arbitration, Construction

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.569069

Hart St Investements Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Construction Industry Scheme : Property Development): FTTTx 13 May 2020

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY SCHEME – property development – property owned by five persons – appellant company specially formed to facilitate property development – were payments by appellant to building contractors made under ‘construction contracts’? – was appellant a person to whom s59 applied? – was it carrying on a business which included construction operations? – yes – was there a reasonable excuse for failure to make CIS returns? – no – appeal dismissed

[2020] UKFTT 218 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Construction, Income Tax

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.651598

Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd: TCC 5 Jun 2006

Jackson J
[2006] EWHC 1341 (TCC)
Bailii
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 – Interserve Industrial Services Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd TCC 6-Feb-2006
. .

Cited by:
Appeal from – 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 (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 – Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another TCC 29-Sep-2008
. .
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: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.242721

Buckingham v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 24 Nov 2010

FTTTx SUB-CONTRACTOR – appellant working for father – father and his company owned some 18 house to let – appellant orchestrated refurbishment work for company – HMRC alleged appellant a contractor under the Construction Industry Scheme – appellant acting as agent for father – appeal allowed

[2010] UKFTT 593 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Construction, Income Tax

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.567533

Bushell v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 16 Nov 2010

FTTTx Construction Industry Scheme .S 57 FA 2004. Regulation 4 SI 2005/2045. Obligation to deliver a monthly return imposed by s 57 on ‘persons who make payments under construction contracts’ When a person ceased to be one who made payments. Extent of obligation to deliver nil return under Reg 4(10). Where obligation existed whether reasonable excuse for failure – reliance on another. Proportionality – Effect of Human Rights law – SKG(London) ltd TC 00282 considered.

[2010] UKFTT 577 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Construction, Income Tax

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.567534

Harrison v Southwark and Vauxhall Water Company: ChD 11 May 1891

A claim was made for damages for nuisance from construction works.
Held: The obligations of the defendant company in respect of the sinking of the shaft were neither greater nor less than those of a private person; and that a private person would not, in similar circumstances, be held to have created a legal nuisance by reason of the annoyance caused to his neighbours in the thumping for the purpose of sinking the shaft, unless it could be shown that he had neglected to take all reasonable precautions for mitigating the annoyance to his neighbours.

Vaughan-Williams J
[1891] 2 Ch 409, [1891] UKLawRpCh 87
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Preferred – Hiscox Syndicates Ltd and Another v The Pinnacle Ltd and others ChD 25-Jan-2008
The claimants sought an injunction in nuisance, saying that the defendants had agreed to use all reasonable endeavours to avoid causing a nuisance to them in demolition works on their neighbouring land.
Held: The injunction should be granted. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Construction

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.266301

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham v Terrapin Construction Limited: CA 31 Jul 2000

Claim for damages for breach of contract, breach of statutory duty and negligence for alleged defects in the new build and refurbishment work at the Sidney Russell Comprehensive School in Dagenham,

Lord Justice Otton
Lord Justice Buxton
And
Mr Justice Hooper
[2000] EWCA Civ 247
Bailii
England and Wales

Construction, Negligence

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.147280

Andreae v Selfridge and Co Ltd: CA 1938

The plaintiff had a hotel. The rest of the island had been acquired by the defendant which was demolishing and rebuilding the other properties. The plaintiff complained, and the judge found, that by reason of the operations, which involved noise and dust, there was a substantial interference with the comfort of the plaintiff in the reasonable occupation and use of her house, such that, assuming damage to be established, an actionable nuisance would be constituted. The judge found that damage was established and assessed the damages at 4500 pounds. It was argued: ‘But it was said that when one is dealing with temporary operations, such as demolition and re-building, everybody has to put up with a certain amount of discomfort, because operations of that kind cannot be carried on at all without a certain amount of noise and a certain amount of dust. Therefore, the rule with regard to interference must be read subject to this qualification, and there can be no dispute about it, that in respect of operations of this character, such as demolition and building, if they are reasonably carried on and all proper and reasonable steps are taken to ensure that no undue inconvenience is caused to neighbours, whether from noise, dust, or other reasons, the neighbours must put up with it.’
Held: The argument succeeded. There was no evidence which would warrant its being said that ‘the type of demolition excavation and construction in which the defendant company was engaged in the course of these operations was of such an abnormal and unusual nature as to prevent the qualification to which I have referred coming into operation’, and (Sir Wilfred Greene MR) ‘I am unable to take the view that any of these operations was of such an abnormal character as to justify treating the disturbance created by it, and the whole of the disturbance created by it, as constituting a nuisance.’
Sir Wilfred Greene MR said: ‘Building operations often substantially interfere with adjoining owners’ enjoyment of their property because of noise, dust and perhaps vibration. Such matters in some circumstances might be held to be a nuisance and form grounds for an injunction prohibiting their continuance or an action for damages or both. If this were the result of ordinary building operations the business of life could not be carried on for old buildings could not be pulled down and new erected in their place. But the law takes a commonsense view of the matter and, if operations’ such as demolition and building are reasonably carried on and all proper and reasonable steps are taken to ensure that no undue inconvenience is caused to neighbours, whether from noise, dust or other reasons, the neighbours must put up with it.’
and ‘Those who say that their interference with the comfort of their neighbours is justified because their operations are normal and usual and conducted with proper care and skill, are under a specific duty if they wish to make good that defence to use that reasonable and proper care and skill. It is not a correct attitude to take to say, We will go on and do what we like until somebody complains’. That is not their duty to their neighbours. Their duty is to take proper precautions and to see that the nuisance is reduced to a minimum. It is no answer for them to say, But this would mean that we should have to do the work more slowly than we would like to do it or it would involve putting us to some extra expense’. All those questions are matters of commonsense and degree, and quite clearly it would be unreasonable to expect people to conduct their work so slowly or so expensively for the purpose of preventing a transient inconvenience that the cost or trouble would be prohibitive. It is all a question of fact and degree and must necessarily be so. In this case the defendant company’s attitude seems to have been to go on until somebody complained and, further, that its desire to hurry its work and conduct it according to its own ideas and its own convenience was to prevail if there was a real conflict between it and the comfort of its neighbours. That, to my mind, is not carrying out the obligation of using reasonable care and skill’.

Sir Wilfred Greene MR, Romer LJ and Scott LJ
[1938] Ch 1
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Rylands v Fletcher HL 1868
The defendant had constructed a reservoir to supply water to his mill. Water escaped into nearby disused mineshafts, and in turn flooded the plaintiff’s mine. The defendant appealed a finding that he was liable in damages.
Held: The defendant . .

Cited by:
Cited – Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council HL 19-Nov-2003
Rylands does not apply to Statutory Works
The claimant laid a large gas main through an embankment. A large water supply pipe nearby broke, and very substantial volumes of water escaped, causing the embankment to slip, and the gas main to fracture.
Held: The rule in Rylands v Fletcher . .
Cited – Wildtree Hotels Ltd and others v Harrow London Borough Council HL 22-Jun-2000
The compensation which was payable for disturbance, when works were carried out on land acquired compulsorily, did not extend to the damage caused by noise dust and vibration arising from the works. Where however damage could be brought within the . .
Cited – Westminster City Council v Ocean Leisure Limited CA 21-Jul-2004
The claimant company owned property next to land which had been acquired to build a new bridge across the Thames. It sought compensation for disturbance to its business from the works.
Held: The state of the law was complicated and . .
Cited – Clift and Another v Welsh Office CA 23-Jul-1998
Whilst it was settled law that no compensation was payable for temporary disturbance to neighbouring land by building works on land compulsorily purchased, as soon as that disturbance came to produce physical damage, compensation became payable. . .
Cited – Wildtree Hotels Ltd And Others v London Borough of Harrow CA 11-Jun-1998
Temporary, if damaging disturbance which fell short of actual damage to a neighbour’s land and which was caused by works executed on land which had been purchased compulsorily, was not normally claimable and not by the owner of only a temporary . .
Cited – Hiscox Syndicates Ltd and Another v The Pinnacle Ltd and others ChD 25-Jan-2008
The claimants sought an injunction in nuisance, saying that the defendants had agreed to use all reasonable endeavours to avoid causing a nuisance to them in demolition works on their neighbouring land.
Held: The injunction should be granted. . .
Mentioned – Shephard and others v Turner and Another CA 23-Jan-2006
The appellants challenged the removal of a restrictive covenant on a neighbour’s house restricting further building on the land to allow further house in the garden. It was in a small close of houses all erected, and the covenant imposed, in 1952. . .
Cited – Coventry and Others v Lawrence and Another SC 26-Feb-2014
C operated a motor racing circuit as tenant. The neighbour L objected that the noise emitted by the operations were a nuisance. C replied that the fact of his having planning consent meant that it was not a nuisance.
Held: The neighbour’s . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Nuisance, Construction

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.188037

J Murphy and Sons Ltd v W Maher and Sons Ltd: TCC 23 May 2016

Part 8 proceedings between a sub-contractor, J. Murphy and Sons Ltd and its earth shifting sub-sub-contractor, W. Maher and Sons Ltd asking about the jurisdiction of an adjudicator, namely, where there is a dispute as to whether there has been a full and final settlement agreement between the contractual parties of the final account, whether the dispute arises ‘under’ the sub-contract or under the alleged settlement agreement or both. ‘

Sir Robert Akenhead
[2016] EWHC 1148 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Construction, Arbitration

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.565559

Higginson Securities (Developments) Ltd and Another v Hodson: TCC 26 Apr 2012

Application for a stay of proceedings to enable without prejudice meetings to occur raising issues about the need for the parties always to have regard to the overriding objective in relation to the application of the practice relating to the Pre-Action Protocol.

Mr Justice Akenheadmr Justice Akenhead
[2012] EWHC 1052 (TCC), [2012] TCLR 6, [2012] BLR 321,
Bailii
England and Wales

Construction, Litigation Practice

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.453020

Manolete Partners Plc v Hastings Borough Council: TCC 12 Apr 2013

Application for compensation under s.106 of the Building Act 1984 for compensation as a result of the Council exercising its powers to prevent access to Hastings Pier under s.78 of the 1984 Act.
Held: The court rejected the defence, holding that the reference to ‘default’ should be read as default in respect of obligations imposed by the 1984 Act itself: ‘If that is not so and if it were necessary to see whether a party was in breach of any provision of other statutes, as is submitted here, then the scope of enquiry would be large and would require investigation of further factual matters to determine whether there was a default in terms of those statutes.’

Ramsey J
[20131 EWHC 842 (TCC), [2013] BLR 361, [2013] RVR 241, [2013] 2 EGLR 17
Bailii
Building Act 1984, Occupiers Liability Act 1957
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Lingke v Christchurch Corporation CA 1912
The householder sought compensation under the Act, for the disturbance in the laying of a drain in the highway abutting the claimant’s house and furniture shop. Because of the constraints of the work site, excavated soil had been thrown up against . .
Cited – Hobbs v Winchester Corporation CA 18-Jun-1910
Meat had been seized under section 116 of the 1875 Act as unfit for human consumption. Although the butcher was acquitted of any offence under section 117 of that Act, on the grounds that he was unaware that it was unfit for consumption, it was . .
Cited – Neath Rural District Council v Williams QBD 1951
A watercourse became silted by natural causes and the local authority served an abatement notice on the landowner, who failed to respond, and when prosecuted relied on a proviso which excluded from liability ‘any person other than the person by . .
Cited – Granada Theatres Ltd v Freehold Investment (Leytonstone) Ltd CA 23-Mar-1959
The tenant claimed that the landlord had failed in its obligations of repair undertaken in the lease.
Held: Where the landlord was in default, a tenant may have a right to undertake the repairs itself, recovering the costs.
Jenkins LJ . .
Cited – Leonidis v Thames Water Authority 1979
Access to the plaintiff’s motor repair business was interfered with by work to reconstruct a sewer. Whilst access was still possible it required a long detour and there was no physical interference with the entrance to the premises.
Held: If a . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another v Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council SC 6-Apr-2011
The land-owner had planning permission to erect a barn, conditional on its use for agricultural purposes. He built inside it a house and lived there from 2002. In 2006. He then applied for a certificate of lawful use. The inspector allowed it, and . .

Cited by:
At TCC – Manolete Partners Plc v Hastings Borough Council CA 7-May-2014
The claimants appealed from rejection of their claim to compensation under the 1984 Act as tenants of a pier closed by the Authority. The Authority said that it had failed to comply with its leasehold obligations of repair, and was in default under . .
At TCC – Hastings Borough Council v Manolete Partners Plc SC 27-Jul-2016
The council appealed against the decision that it is liable to pay compensation under section 106 of the Building Act 1984, for loss to a business on Hastings Pier arising from its closure during 2006 under the council’s emergency powers. The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Local Government

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.472588

William Milne, Architect In Edinburgh, and Alexander Brown, Merchant In Edinburgh, and Robert Milne, Architect In London, His Cautioners v The Magistrates and Town Council of Edinburgh: HL 15 Feb 1770

Arbitration Clause – Contract.-
A contract in regard to the execution of the works in building a bridge, contained a clause, referring all differences and disputes to two neutral men of skill, as arbiters to be chosen, and in case of them differing, with power to them to choose an oversman, whose determination was to be final. Held, on a preliminary defence being stated, to a summons raised for failure to implement the contract, founded on this clause, that an agreement to refer all disputes to arbiters, did not bar the present action in this court, and that the plea in this case, was irrelevant and inadmissible.

[1770] UKHL 2 – Paton – 209
Bailii

Scotland, Construction, Arbitration

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.561667

Arcadis UK Ltd v May and Baker Ltd (T/A Sanofi): TCC 29 Jan 2013

Issues are raised in these adjudication enforcement proceedings as the extent to which it is legitimate or unfair for an adjudicator to take into account or adopt the reasoning of a previous adjudicator’s decision.

Mr Justice Akenhead
[2013] EWHC 87 (TCC), [2013] BLR 210
Bailii
England and Wales

Arbitration, Construction

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.470636

Agnew (T/A B and I Plastering) v Revenue and Customs (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Sub-Contractors In The Construction Industry): FTTTx 25 Nov 2015

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY SCHEME – late filing of monthly returns – obligation delegated to bookkeeper – Appellant asserted that yearly P35’s contained details of CIS deductions – whether a reasonable excuse – no – Section 98A Taxes Management Act 1970 – Schedule 55 to the Finance Act 2009 – CIS tax deductions not accounted for to HMRC – whether penalties unfair or disproportionate – no – principles set down in Bosher applied – appeal not allowed

[2015] UKFTT 587 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax, Construction

Updated: 07 January 2022; Ref: scu.556399