swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Construction - From: 1999 To: 1999
This page lists 32 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.
Henry Boot Construction v Malmaison Hotel (Manchester) Ltd (1999) 70 Con LR 32
1999
TCC
HHJ Dyson
Construction, Arbitration
1 Cites
1 Citers
Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Trust v Hammond etc [1999] EWHC Technology 272; (2000) Lloyd's Rep 643
8 Jan 1999
TCC
His Honour Judge John Hicks Qc
Construction, Arbitration
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Oxford University Fixed Assets Ltd v Architects Design Partnership (A Firm), Tarmac Construction (Contracts) Ltd (Formerly Wimpey Construction Ltd) [1999] EWHC Technology 271
13 Jan 1999
TCC
Construction
[ Bailii ]
R J Young (T/a All Counties Tarmacadam) v Thames Properties Limited and City Electrical Factors Limited [1999] EWCA Civ 629
21 Jan 1999
CA
Construction
[ Bailii ]
Henry Boot Construction Limited v Alstom Combined Cycles Limited (Formerly GEC Alsthom Combined Cycles Limited) [1999] EWHC Technology 263
22 Jan 1999
TCC
Humphrey Lloyd QC
Arbitration, Construction
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Citibank Ne v Lebihan Contracts Limited; Anton Piller (Uk) Limited and Thames Environmental Services Limited [1999] EWCA Civ 679
29 Jan 1999
CA
Construction, Negligence
[ Bailii ]
Birse Construction Limited v St David Limited [1999] EWHC Technology 253; (1999) BLR 194
12 Feb 1999
TCC
HHJ Humphrey Lloyd
Construction, Arbitration
There are four approaches to deciding whether an arbitration agreement exists to which section 9 applies:- (1) to determine on the evidence before the court that such an agreement does exist in which case (if the disputes fall within the terms of that agreement) a stay must be granted, in the light of the mandatory "shall" in section 9(4). It is this mandatory provision which is the statutory enactment of the relevant Article of the New York Convention, to which the United Kingdom is a party; (2) to stay the proceedings on the basis that it will be left to the arbitrators to determine their own jurisdiction pursuant to section 30 of the 1996 Act, taking into account the subsequent provisions in the 1996 Act for challenge to any decision eventually made by the arbitrators; (3) not to decide the issue but to make directions pursuant to what is now CPR Part 62.8 for an issue to be tried as to whether an arbitration agreement does indeed exist; (4) to decide that no arbitration agreement exists and to dismiss the application to stay.
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Macob Civil Engineering Ltd v Morrison Construction Ltd; TCC 12-Feb-1999 - Gazette, 10 March 1999; Times, 11 March 1999; [1999] EWHC Technology 254; [1999] BLR 93; (1999) 64 Con LR 1
Pearce and High Limited v Baxter and Baxter (1999) 1 TCLR 157; [1999] EWCA Civ 789; [1999] CLC 749; 66 Con LR 110; [1999] BLR 101
15 Feb 1999
CA
construction
[ Bailii ]
Norwest Holst Construction Ltd v Dumfries and Galloway Council [1999] ScotCS 84
19 Mar 1999
SCS
Lord Justice Clerk
Construction
Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1972 3(1)
[ Bailii ]
Paddington Churches Housing Association v Technical and General Guarantee Company Limited [1999] EWHC Technology 246
22 Mar 1999
TCC
Construction
[ Bailii ]
Pearce and High Ltd v Baxter and Another Times, 24 March 1999; [1999] 66 Con LR 110
24 Mar 1999
CA
Construction
The clause in JCT specifying procedures for claiming against contractors did not oust the employers' common law rights. An employer failing to give notice under the defects liability clause in time, could still sue under common law for the defect.
1 Cites
1 Citers
Costain Building and Civil Engineering v Smith and Another [1999] UKEAT 141 - 99 - 0505
5 May 1999
EAT
Construction, Employment
This case raises a question as to whether an agency worker engaged in the construction industry was an employee of the building contractor.
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Penwith District Council v VP Developments Ltd [1999] EWHC Technology 231
21 May 1999
TCC
Construction
[ Bailii ]
McNicholas Plc v AEI Cables Limited
25 May 1999
TCC
Humphrey Lloyd QC
Construction, Arbitration
The claimant had subcontracted to supply cabling on the defendant's project. The contract provided both for the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts but also for arbitration. The defendant applied for the action to be stayed and referred to arbitration. The claimant said the clause was ineffective being uncertain within s9 of the 1996 Act, and also unenforceable as an unfair contract term Held: The reference clause was effective, and the court action should be stayed for arbitration. "Wherever possible, a court will seek to uphold a contract rather than to destroy it. In my judgment it is plain that clause 8 of this sub-contract has two purposes. First, it selected the law that was to be applied to the contract. The reference to the English Courts having exclusive jurisdiction over the agreement is curious since both parties are English companies and the works are in England so this stipulation may be redundant, but equally there may have been a good reason for it. It is however clear that clause 9 is intended to ensure that disputes in a wide variety of circumstances should either be referred to arbitration or should be subject to some other regime. I have no doubt that the reference to the English courts having jurisdiction can be read satisfactorily with clause 9 since it must be taken to be the parties' intention that in so far as it was necessary to have recourse to any court to deal with any matter arising out of the agreement which could not be dealt with by the arbitrator then the English courts would be the appropriate court. "
The abrogation clause was strikingly unclear, but remained effective. The court approved the statement: "Incapable of being performed" connotes something more than mere difficulty or inconvenience or delay in performing the arbitration. There must be some obstacle which must be overcome even if the parties are ready, able and willing to perform the agreement." The agreement did not provide the claimant of an opportunity to have its disagreement dealt with fairly if the defendant gave notice to abrogate the agreement to arbitrate, but no such notice had been given.
The clause was unreasonable under the 1977 Act because it risked one party being unable to have its complaint adjudicated upon, and also being unable to have adjudicated an unrelated matter.
Arbitration Act 1996 9 - Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 13(1)
1 Cites
Kent (T/a Alldrive Hire) v Mike Stacey Limited [1999] EWCA Civ 1527
28 May 1999
CA
Contract, Construction
[ Bailii ]
A Straume (UK) Ltd v Bradlor Developments Ltd; ChD 29-Jun-1999 - Times, 29 June 1999
Allied London and Scottish Properties Plc v Riverbrae Construction Limited [1999] ScotCS 170
12 Jul 1999
SCS
Lord Kingarth
Construction, Scotland
[ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ]
Davies v Hardiman (T/a Didsbury Glass and Glazing) [1999] EWCA Civ 1817
13 Jul 1999
CA
Construction, Damages
[ Bailii ]
Christopher Kelly v Laurie Moran Arthur [1999] EWCA Civ 1891
20 Jul 1999
CA
Construction
[ Bailii ]
Wealands (Widow and Administratrix of the Estate of Brian Wealands Deceased) v CLC Contractors Limited and Key Scaffolding Limited ; Alan C Bennett and Sons Limited Parties; CA 22-Jul-1999 - Times, 05 October 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 1922
Yates v Hamilton-Andrews [1999] EWCA Civ 1952
23 Jul 1999
CA
Construction
Building dispute
[ Bailii ]
Redland Aggregates Limited v Shephard Hill Civil Engineering Limited; CA 29-Jul-1999 - [1999] EWCA Civ 2028
Brian Andrews (T/a B A Contractors) v John H Bradshaw H Randell and Son Limited [1999] EWCA Civ 2008
29 Jul 1999
CA
Nourse LJ, Mantell LJ, Mance LJ
Construction
[ Bailii ]
Stock and others v London Underground Ltd Times, 13 August 1999; [1999] EWCA Civ 2058
30 Jul 1999
CA
Construction, Damages
The principles for damages over different heads which apply in other areas of law apply also in building disputes. Where there are several heads of damages, claims did not give rise to separate causes of action in respect of each head, and evidence of damage under each head need not necessarily be shown. There were not in this case separate acts or activities giving rise to the separate heads of claim.
[ Bailii ]
Harbour and General Works Ltd v The Environment Agency Times, 22 October 1999; Gazette, 10 November 1999; [1999] BLR 409
22 Oct 1999
CA
Arbitration, Contract, Construction
Where parties operated under a contract which provided for arbitration provided reference was claimed within a certain time scale, the failure of one party to apply for a reference in time because he had failed to read that part of the contract was not a sufficient reason to allow an extension of time. This applied even though the term was incorporated by reference, and that such applications need not be construed strictly.
1 Citers
Harmon CFEM Facades (UK) Limited v The Corporate Officer of The House of Commons; TCC 28-Oct-1999 - [1999] EWHC Technology 199; 1996 ORB No 1151; (1999) 67 Con LR 1
Johnston v W H Brown Construction (Dundee) Ltd Times, 12 November 1999
12 Nov 1999
OHCS
Construction
An employer who had to prepare a schedule of defects in order to pursue a claim against his builder, and incurred both architects and legal costs in the preparation of the schedule was not able to claim such costs as consequential losses under the contract. Such losses were not recoverable at common law.
Scottish Building Contract with Contractor's Design (Jan 1993 rev)
1 Citers
Allied London and Scottish Properties Plc v Riverbrae Construction Ltd Times, 12 November 1999
12 Nov 1999
OHCS
Construction, Scotland
An adjudicator who acts under the Scheme upon the written submission of the parties and without any oral hearing was not able to consider making an order for payment of the award by installments where neither party had raised that issue in their written submissions. He was not required by the scheme to consider such a procedure.
Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 108
Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Trust v Hammond and others [1999] EWHC Technology 187
9 Dec 1999
TCC
His Honour Judge John Hicks Qc
Construction
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Bouygues UK Limited v Dahl-Jensen UK Limited; TCC 17-Dec-1999 - [1999] EWHC Technology 182; [2000] BLR 49
Floods of Queensferry Ltd, David Charles Flood v Shand Constructions Ltd, Morrison Shand Constructions Ltd, Morrison Construction Ltd; TCC 17-Dec-1999 - 1994 ORB 826; [1999] EWHC Technology 183