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: 2002 To: 2002
This page lists 47 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.
Shimizu Europe Ltd v Automajor Ltd [2002] EWHC 1571 (TCC)
17 Jan 2002
PatC
His Honour Judge Richard Seymour Q.C.
Arbitration, Construction
The claimant sought to enforce an award made under the Rules. The Respondent objected on the basis that the award included errors and inconsistencies. This had been denied by the Adjudicator. An adjudicator's decision has a different status to that of an arbitrator, insofar as his decision is binding until set aside. If an error had been made, it was not one of jurisdiction. An award had to be accepted entirely or not at all. By inviting the adjudicator to amend his award under the slip rule, the respondent had in effect recognised the validity of the award as such.
Technology and Construction Solicitors Association Adjudication Rules - 1999 Version 1.3
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
Baxall Securities Limited, Norbain SDC Limited v Sheard Walshaw Partnership, Shaw Whitmore Partnership, Birse Construction Limited, FK Roofing Limited, Fullflow Limited [2002] BLR 100; [2002] EWCA Civ 9
22 Jan 2002
CA
Lord Justice Brooke, Lady Justice Hale, And, Mr Justice David Steel
Construction, Negligence
Claims followed the flooding of a new built building. It was alleged that the gutters were designed without overflows, and so were defective. The judge found that it had been designed to a lower, and wrong capacity. Held: The assessment of the appropriate design rate has to be made without regard to overflow capacity. It was argued that a defect was patent (i.e. not latent) if the dangerous propensity is apparent, even if the actual nature of the flaw is not. That argument failed. A latent defect means a concealed flaw, the actual defect in the workmanship or design, not the danger presented by the defect. There was no distinction in principle between drainage and overflow arrangements. The chain of causation between the architect's error in regard to the provision of overflows and both floods was broken. The links in the chain cannot be re-connected to the second flood merely because there was another error which rendered the provision of overflows the more important.
[ Bailii ]
Barry Urquart Associates (a firm) v East Surrey Health Authority Gazette, 01 February 2002
22 Jan 2002
CA
Lord Justice Latham, Mr Justice Wilson
Construction, Contract
A health authority appointed the claimant to begin work designing a new hospital. The hospital was completed by the defendant successor authority who had appointed a different firm of architects to complete the work. The claimant appealed a dismissal of its claim for the costs of the initial work undertaken. Held: The contact failed to include any clause entitling payment for the initial works. Earlier papers suggesting this might happen had not been incorporated into the contract.
Baxall Securities Ltd and Another v Sheard Walshaw Partnership and others [2002] EWCA Civ 9; [2002] Lloyd's Law Rep PN 231; 83 Con LR 164; [2002] 17 EG 158
22 Jan 2002
CA
Brooke, Hale LJJ, David Steele J
Construction
[ Bailii ]
C and B Scene Concept Design Ltd v Isobars Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 46; [2002] BLR 93
31 Jan 2002
CA
Lord Justice Potter, Lord Justice Rix, And, Sir Murray Stuart-Smith
Construction, Arbitration, Litigation Practice
The claimant appealed a refusal of summary judgement, in a claim to enforce an arbitration award. Where an award was challenged, enforcement should still be allowed to continue unless the challenge went as to the jurisdiction of the reference. Errors of procedure, fact or law are not sufficient to prevent enforcement of an adjudicator's decision by summary judgment. In this case there was agreement as to the scope of the dispute, and the Adjudicator's decision, even with errors of law as to the relevant contractual provisions, is still binding and enforceable until the matter is corrected in the final determination. Appeal allowed.
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
China National Petroleum Corporation and others v Fenwick Elliott, Techint International Construction Company [2002] EWHC 60 (Ch)
31 Jan 2002
ChD
The Vice-Chancellor
Construction, Intellectual Property, Information, Legal Professions
In the course of a dispute, the claimants concluded that the respondents had acquired documents of a confidential nature, and sought restoration and disclosure of the source. The solicitors for the respondents suggested that the claimants were in breach of disclosure orders, and that the materials were not privileged, and would be subject to disclosure in any event. It was then alleged that the respondent firm had acted improperly in seeking privileged information from employees of the claimants. It was argued that the sources of the information should be disclosed, but the respondents argued that this might put them at personal risk. In this case there was no evidence of privilege inhering, and no specific allegations, and the respondents claim of privilege attaching to his interviews of witnesses succeeded. The claim had no prospect of success and was struck out.
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Kelsey (T/A Terry Kelsey Property Improvements) v Streatfeild [2002] EWCA Civ 214
4 Feb 2002
CA
Construction
Application for leave to appeal - construction dispute.
[ Bailii ]
Solland International Ltd v Daraydan Holdings Ltd [2002] EWHC 220 (Technology)
15 Feb 2002
TCC
Construction
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
Total M and E Services Ltd v Abb Building Technologies Ltd [2002] EWHC 248 (Technology)
26 Feb 2002
TCC
Construction, Arbitration
[ Bailii ]
Total M and E Services Ltd v ABB Building Technologies Ltd [2002] EWHC 248 (Technology)
26 Feb 2002
TCC
Wilcox J
Construction, Arbitration
Application for summary judgment to enforce construction arbitration award.
Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act of 1996
[ Bailii ]
RJT Consulting Engineers Ltd v DM Engineering (NI) Ltd Gazette, 11 April 2002; [2002] CILL 1841; (2002) 18 Const LJ 425; [2002] TCLR 21; 83 Con LR 99; [2002] EWCA Civ 270; [2002] CLC 905; [2002] 1 WLR 2344; [2002] BLR 217
8 Mar 2002
CA
Lords Justice Auld, Ward and Robert Walker
Construction, Contract, Arbitration
The court considered what would amount to a contract in writing under the 1996 Act. Ward LJ said: "Section 107(2) gives three categories where the agreement is to be treated in writing. The first is where the agreement, whether or not it is signed by the parties, is made in writing. That must mean where the agreement is contained in a written document which stands as a record of the agreement and all that was contained in the agreement. The second category, an exchange of communications in writing, likewise is capable of containing all that needs to be known about the agreement. One is therefore led to believe by what used to be known as the eiusdem generis rule that the third category will be to the same effect namely that the evidence in writing is evidence of the whole agreement.
Sub-section (3) is consistent with that view. Where the parties agree by reference to terms which are in writing, the legislature is envisaging that all of the material terms are in writing and that the oral agreement refers to that written record.
Sub-section (4) allows an agreement to be evidenced in writing if it (the agreement) is recorded by one of the parties or by a third party with the authority of the parties to the agreement. What is there contemplated is, thus, a record (which by sub-section (6) can be in writing or a record by any means) of everything which has been said. Again it is a record of the whole agreement." and "On the point of construction of section 107, what has to be evidenced in writing is, literally, the agreement, which means all of it, not part of it. A record of the agreement also suggests a complete agreement, not a partial one. . . It must be remembered that by virtue of section 107(1) the need for an agreement in writing is the precondition for the application of the other provisions of Part II of the Act, not just the jurisdictional threshold for a reference to adjudication. I say 'unfortunately' because, like Auld L.J. whose judgment I have now read in draft, I would regard it as a pity if too much 'jurisdictional wrangling' were to limit the opportunities for expeditious adjudication having an interim effect only. No doubt adjudicators will be robust in excluding the trivial from the ambit of the agreement and the matter must be entrusted to their common sense. "
Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 107
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Skanska Construction Ltd v Egger [Barony] Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 310
13 Mar 2002
CA
Construction
[ Bailii ]
Amec Process and Energy Ltd v Stork Engineers and Contractors Bv (No. 3) [2002] EWHC B1 (TCC)
15 Mar 2002
TCC
Construction
[ Bailii ]
Chamberlain Carpentry and Joinery Ltd v Alfred Mcalpine Construction Ltd [2002] EWHC 514 (Technology)
25 Mar 2002
TCC
Construction
[ Bailii ]
Parsons Plastics (Research and Development) Ltd v Purac Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 459
12 Apr 2002
CA
The Hon Mr Justice Latham
Construction, Contract, Arbitration
The claimants were main contractors on a construction project. The respondents were sub-contractors. After difficulties, the sub-contractor was ejected from the site. The issue was as to the jurisdiction of the adjudicator. Was the project, to create a sewage station, a 'construction operation' within the Act? Held: The sum was due under the contract irrespective of whether an adjudicator also found it to be due. The contract could not be re-read to exclude the arbitration requirement. In this case the contractors were unlikely to succeed in any attempt to deny the sub-contractors their right to payment for works done, and payment should not be delayed for a set off claim. The judge was entitled, in her discretion, to make an interim award.
Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd v London Borough of Lambeth [2002] EWHC 597 (TCC)
12 Apr 2002
TCC
Construction
[ Bailii ]
John Doyle Construction Limited v Laing Management (Scotland) Limited Times, 10 July 2002
18 Apr 2002
SCS
Lord MacFadyen
Scotland, Construction, Damages
The pursuer made a loss and expense claim in global form in a construction dispute. He was unable to prove that all of his losses stemmed from the default. Held: A global claim requires proof that each and every element of the loss claimed followed from the breach. Proof that any event not part of the fault caused any part of the loss would defeat the entire claim. However some common sense should be applied, and where individual losses demonstrably flowed from individual acts of default, a rational apportionment might still be possible.
1 Cites
[ ScotC ]
Saunders v Williams [2002] EWCA Civ 673
25 Apr 2002
CA
Construction
[ Bailii ]
Co-Operative Retail Services Limited and others v Taylor Young Partnership and others; HL 25-Apr-2002 - [2002] UKHL 17
Daly and Another v Sheikh [2002] EWCA Civ 810
7 May 2002
CA
Construction
Application for leave to appeal
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Zielinski Baker and Partners Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise Times, 29 May 2002; Gazette, 27 June 2002; [2002] EWCA Civ 692; [2002] STC 829
12 May 2002
CA
Lord Justice Aldous, Lord Justice Tuckey and Lord Justice Rix
VAT, Construction
Taxpayers sought exemption from VAT for works to a building. The commissioners claimed that the main building was not a dwelling, and that therefore the outbuilding would not be exempt. Held: The main building was listed, and the outbuilding was with in the curtilage as defined in the 1990 Act. Works to the outbuilding therefore attracted the same exemption as the main building. There appeared no proper reason to treat the outbuilding as a separate building.
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 1(5) - Value Added Tax Act 1994 Sch 8 Grp 6
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Aqua Design and Play International Ltd (T/A Aqua Design) and Another v Kier Regional Ltd (T/A French Kier Anglia) and Another [2002] EWCA Civ 797; [2003] BLR 111; [2003] 82 Con LR 107
14 May 2002
CA
Construction
[ Bailii ]
Thames Water Utilities Ltd v Digginwell Plant and Construction Ltd [2002] EWHC 1171 (TCC)
24 Jun 2002
PatC
Utilities, Construction
[ Bailii ]
Thames Water Utilities Ltd v Digginwell Plant and Construction Ltd [2002] EWHC 1171 (Technology)
24 Jun 2002
TCC
Construction, Utilities
Water Industry Act 1991 109(1)
[ Bailii ]
Co-Operative Insurance Society Ltd v Henry Boot Scotland Ltd and others [2002] EWHC 1270 (Technology)
1 Jul 2002
TCC
Construction
[ Bailii ]
J T Mackley and Company Ltd v Gosport Marina Ltd [2002] EWHC 1315 (Technology); [2002] EWHC 1315 (Technology)
3 Jul 2002
TCC
His Honour Judge Richard Seymour Q.C.
Arbitration, Construction
The claimant challenged the validity of a notice to refer a case to arbitration. The respondent challenged saying that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the objection, and that such issues were to be decided by the arbitrator. The claim related to substantial works of land reclamation. Held: The matters at issue fell within the scope of Part I of the 1996 Act, and the court could normally only intervene in accordance with the Act. To accept the claimant's position widely would be to allow a party to avoid the Act by simply refusing to appoint an arbitrator. However, the importance of the issues raised meant that in this case the court could hear the claim disputing the Notice to Refer. A decision of the Engineer was a pre-requisite to a Notice to Refer, and the issue of the Notice was not to be held in suspense pending the decision of Engineer's decision. The Notice to Refer was invalid.
Arbitration Act 1996 1 2 32 - Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 108(5) - The Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998 SI 1998 No. 649
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Mostcash Plc and others v Fluor Ltd (No 2) [2002] EWCA Civ 1112
11 Jul 2002
CA
Construction
Post Judgment matters
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Mostcash Plc and others v Fluor Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 975; [2002] Build LR 411; 83 Con LR 1
11 Jul 2002
CA
Construction
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Blom-Cooper Times, 20 July 2002; [2002] EWHC 1421 (Ch); [2002] STC 1061
12 Jul 2002
ChD
Mr Justice Peter Smith
Construction, VAT
The tax payer had converted a building which had had both residential and business uses into residential use, and sought to reclaim the input tax on that part of the expenditure attributable to the residential part. The Commissioners appealed. Held: The tribunal was correct. There was no need to restrict the availability to wholly residential conversions, and such a reading would lead to absurdity. The conversion fell within the definition of the section to the extent described.
Value Added Tax Act 1994 35(1D)
1 Cites
1 Citers
ACT Construction Ltd v E Clarke and Son [2002] EWCA Civ 1341
16 Jul 2002
CA
Construction
Post judgment orders
[ Bailii ]
Clarke and Sons v ACT Construction [2002] EWCA Civ 972; 85 Con LR 1
16 Jul 2002
CA
Construction
[ Bailii ]
Shahravash v Merchant Resources (UK) Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1306
23 Jul 2002
CA
Construction
[ Bailii ]
Levolux A T Ltd v Ferson Contractors Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1382
8 Aug 2002
CA
Construction
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
George Wimpey UK Ltd v Granby Village (Manchester) Management Company Ltd [2002] EWHC 2913 (TCC)
14 Aug 2002
TCC
Arbitration, Construction
[ Bailii ]
Clark Contracts v The Burrell Co (Construction Management) Ltd (Second Debate) 2002 SLT 103
1 Oct 2002
ScSf
Sheriff J.A. Taylor
Construction
Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 111
1 Citers
[ ScotC ]
Thames Water Utilities Ltd v Hampstead Homes (London) Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1487
8 Oct 2002
CA
Construction
[ Bailii ]
Thames Water Utilities Ltd v Hampstead Homes (London) Ltd Times, 15 October 2002; Gazette, 31 October 2002
8 Oct 2002
CA
May, Bodey LLJ
Utilities, Construction
A building was converted to flats. It had previously been connected to the water and sewage supplies, but the water company sought to charge for connecting the new apartments. Held: Whether a charge cold be made was a matter of fact and degree. Both the words 'premises' and 'connection' in the Act required construction, but neither was defined. Premises referred to buildings, but could also include parts of buildings. Charges for connection were to be made for buildings not previously connected, and where additional burdens would be placed on the systems. Conversions fell within this group. In this case 109 flats constituted new premises, and a charge could be made.
Water Industry Act 1991 146(2)(a)
Daly and Another v Sheikh [2002] EWCA Civ 1630
24 Oct 2002
CA
Construction
Application for leave to appeal
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Yarm Road Ltd and Another v Hewden Tower Cranes Ltd [2002] EWHC 2265 (TCC)
4 Nov 2002
TCC
Construction
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Venables v Wardle [2002] EWHC 3073 (TCC)
6 Nov 2002
TCC
Construction
[ Bailii ]
Cowlin Construction Ltd v CFW Architects (A Firm) [2002] EWHC 2914 (TCC)
15 Nov 2002
TCC
Construction
Enforcement of arbitration award
[ Bailii ]
Mccook v Lobo and others [2002] EWCA Civ 1760; [2003] ICR 89
19 Nov 2002
CA
Judge LJ, Hale LJ
Personal Injury, Construction, Health and Safety
The defendant was the occupier of premises. He did not direct how the work should be done and was not present at the time the work was being performed. Held. He had not been in control of the relevant work. Judge LJ referred to Regulation 4(2) of the 1996 Regulations and said: "The requisite level of control before the duty does arise, however, is linked to the way in which construction work is carried out and it is confined to construction work within the individual's control. For this purpose the obvious person who controls the way in which construction work on site is carried out is an employer. The employer owes express duties under regulation 4(1). That, therefore, identifies the starting point. But someone who is not an employer may also be bound by the statutory obligation under regulation 4(2). Whether the appropriate level of control over the work is or should be exercised by an individual other than an employer so as to create the duty to comply with the obligations under regulation 4(2) is, in my judgment, a question of fact. It is not answered affirmatively by demonstrating that an individual has control over the site in a general sense as an occupier, or that as the occupier of the site he was entitled to ask or require a contractor to remove obvious hazards from the site. The required control is related to control over the work of construction"
Hale LJ underlined that the issue of control was an issue of fact, saying: "Regulation 4(2) of the 1996 Regulations to my mind depends entirely on the question of factual control."
Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Mclaren Murdoch and Hamilton Limited v the Abercromby Motor Group Ltd [2002] ScotCS 299
22 Nov 2002
OHCS
Lord Drummond Young
Scotland, Construction
The claimant architects sought payment of their professional fees. The defenders alleged negligence and breach of contract. Held: The fee must be based on the final account in the building contract, and not on any budget figure.
[ ScotC ] - [ Bailii ]
Amoco (UK) Exploration Company v Telephone Cables Ltd [2002] EWHC 2534 (Comm)
4 Dec 2002
ComC
Construction
[ Bailii ]
Morris v Jones and others [2002] EWCA Civ 1790; [2002] All ER (D) 82; [2001] EMLR 800
6 Dec 2002
CA
Lord Justice Clarke, Lord Justice Ward, Sir Anthony Evans
Land, Construction
Defective Premises Act 1972
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Shaw (Inspector of Taxes) v Vicky Construction Ltd Times, 27 December 2002; [2002] EWHC 2659 (Ch); [2002] STC 1544
6 Dec 2002
ChD
Ferris J
Human Rights, Taxes Management, Construction
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. Held: The certificate itself would be a possession within the Convention, but the right to have it re-issued was not such a right in property. The requirement to deduct sums for tax did deprive the sub-contractors of a possession. However a state enjoys a wide margin of appreciation in taxation matters. An interference with property to ensure payment of tax could be justified. The provisions were not arbitrary or excessive, and need not be read down to make them compliant. The decision of the general commissioners was wrong and was set aside.
Ferris J said: "It became notorious during the latter part of last century that many sub-contractors engaged in the construction industry disappeared without settling their tax liabilities with a consequential loss of revenue to the Exchequer. In order to remedy that abuse Parliament enacted legislation going back to the early 1970s under which a contractor is obliged except in the case of a sub-contractor who holds a relevant certificate to deduct and pay over to the Revenue a proportion of all payments made to the sub-contractor in respect of the labour content of any sub-contract. The amount so deducted and paid over is in due course allowed as a credit against the sub-contractors liability to the Revenue. The need to make and pay over such deductions can be an irritation to the contractor obliged to carry out this exercise. It also adversely effects the cash flow of the sub-contractor. Accordingly it is advantageous to a sub-contractor to have a statutory certificate rendering such a deduction unnecessary. The provision of such a certificate tends to make the sub-contractor holding the certificate a more attractive party for the contractor to deal with and by enabling the sub-contractor to receive the contract price without deduction improves the sub-contractor's case flow.
The legislation which governs the present regime is now contained in sections 559 to 567 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. The basic requirement is imposed by section 559. It imposes the general requirement on a contractor to make deductions from payments made to a sub-contractor and to pay over to the Revenue the amounts deducted. The current percentage required to be deducted is 18 per cent. The section also prescribes how such amounts are to be treated in the hands of the Revenue.
Section 561 provides an exception from the requirements of section 559. In the case of a payment made to a sub-contractor who holds a certificate under section 561 which is in force when the payment is made the issue of such a certificate is governed by section 561 itself. In order to be entitled to the grant of a certificate the taxpayer must satisfy certain conditions. In the case of a company the conditions are those set out in section 565."
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 561 565 - European Convention on Human Rights
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Bellefield Computer Services and others v E Turner and Sons Limited and others [2002] EWCA Civ 1823
18 Dec 2002
CA
Lord Justice Potter Lord Justice May Sir Anthony Evans
Professional Negligence, Construction
The defendants had carried out works of construction on the premises. They subcontracted the design, but not the supervision, of the works to architects. Years later there was a fire, which spread rapidly because of negligence in the design of a wall intended to restrain any fire. The architects said their duty was limited to responding to the first defendant's requests for plans, and they did not themselves have responsibility for failures of specification. Held: The omissions in design were the responsibility of the architects, who owed a duty of care to purchasers of a building as beneficial owners, where they had been involved in the construction, in respect of latent defects in the building of which there is no reasonable possibility of inspection.
1 Cites
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
