Tag: Construction

Secretary of State for Defence v Turner Estate Solutions Ltd: TCC 30 Apr 2015

The defendant company had contracted for construction works at HMNB Clyde. The contract provided for payment to vary according to actual costs and a profit margin, but subject to a maximum. The costs would now well exceed the maximum charge, and argued that since the parties had ceased to use the change procedures, it was entitled to renegotiate and claim their actual costs and a profit margin.

Judges:

Coulson J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 1150 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction, Contract

Updated: 31 December 2022; Ref: scu.546221

Barclays Bank Plc v Fairclough Building Ltd (No 2): CA 15 Feb 1995

Contractors taking on building work should be assumed to have taken account of the possible presence of asbestos when quoting for the work.

Citations:

Times 15-Feb-1995, Ind Summary 20-Feb-1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See also – Barclays Bank Plc v Fairclough Building Ltd CA 11-May-1994
Contributory negligence is no defence to a claim which was made out strictly in contract only. . .

Cited by:

See also – Barclays Bank Plc v Fairclough Building Ltd CA 11-May-1994
Contributory negligence is no defence to a claim which was made out strictly in contract only. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Construction

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.78203

Co-Operative Wholesale Society Ltd (Trading As CWS Engineering Group) v Birse Construction Ltd et Cetera: CA 23 Jul 1997

JCT terms not intended to protect sub-contractor against insolvency of the main contractor allowing claim against main employer.

Citations:

Gazette 23-Jul-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 2062

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction, Arbitration

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.79488

Darlington Borough Council v Wiltshier Northern Ltd and Others: CA 29 Jun 1994

The council owned land on which it wanted to build a recreational centre. Construction contracts were entered into not by the council but by a finance company, the building contractors being the respondents Wiltshier Northern Ltd. The finance company then assigned to the council its rights under the building contracts, and the council claimed damages from the builders for breach of the contracts. The builders took the point that the council, as assignee, had no greater rights under the contracts than the finance company had and that, as the finance company did not own the site, it had suffered no loss.
Held: A third party may sue on a contract to recover damages for defects if the benefit of a building contract was intended for them and had been assigned to him. Where there is a right to have an assignment of any cause of action accruing to the employer against the contractor, the exception in Albazero may still apply so as to enable the assignee to recover substantial damages. The fact that the innocent party did not receive the bargain for which he contracted is itself a loss: ‘he suffers a loss of bargain or of expectation interest.’
Steyn LJ: ‘in the case of a building contract, the prima facie rule is cost of cure, i.e., the cost of remedying the defect: East Ham Corporation v. Bernard Sunley and Sons Ltd. [19661 A.C. 406. But where the cost of remedying the defects involves expense out of all proportion to the benefit which could accrue from it, the court is entitled to adopt the alternative measure of difference of the value of the works . . .’

Judges:

Dillon, Waite and Steyn LJJ

Citations:

Times 04-Jul-1994, Independent 29-Jun-1994, Gazette 12-Oct-1994, [1995] 1 WLR 68

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Albacruz (Cargo Owners) v Albazero ‘The Albazero’ HL 1977
The House was asked as to the extent to which a consignor can claim damages against a carrier in circumstances where the consignor did not retain either property or risk. To the general principle that a person cannot recover substantial damages for . .
Applied – Dunlop v Lambert HL 16-Jun-1839
A cargo of whisky was lost in carriage by sea between Leith and Newcastle. A second shipment was made and the loss was claimed. The House was asked whether ‘in a question between a carrier and the person to whom the carrier is responsible in the . .
Cited – East Ham Corporation v Bernard Sunley and Sons Ltd HL 1965
In cases in which the plaintiff is seeking damages for the defective performance of a building contract, which is a contract for labour and materials, the normal measure of his damages is the cost of carrying out remedial work, or re-instatement. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Alfred Mcalpine Construction Limited v Panatown Limited HL 17-Feb-2000
A main contractor who was building not on his own land, would only be free to claim damages from a sub-contractor for defects in the building where the actual owner of the land would not also have had a remedy. Here, the land owner was able to sue . .
Cited – Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth HL 29-Jun-1995
Damages on Construction not as Agreed
The appellant had contracted to build a swimming pool for the respondent, but, after agreeing to alter the specification to construct it to a certain depth, in fact built it to the original lesser depth, Damages had been awarded to the house owner . .
Cited – Pegler Ltd v Wang (UK) Ltd TCC 25-Feb-2000
Standard Conract – Wide Exclusions, Apply 1977 Act
The claimant had acquired a computer system from the defendant, which had failed. It was admitted that the contract had been broken, and the court set out to decide the issue of damages.
Held: Even though Wang had been ready to amend one or . .
Cited – Lowick Rose Llp v Swynson Ltd and Another SC 11-Apr-2017
Losses arose from the misvaluation of a company before its purchase. The respondent had funded the purchase, relying upon a valuation by the predecessor of the appellant firm of accountants. Further advances had been made when the true situation was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Construction

Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.79806

Murray and Another v Neil Dowlman Architecture Ltd: TCC 16 Apr 2013

Coulson J discussed the sorts of case when the ordinary orders for costs was appropriate: ‘In my view, in an ordinary case, it will be extremely difficult to persuade a court that inadequacies or mistakes in the preparation of a costs budget, which is then approved by the court, should be subsequently revised or rectified, for the reasons given by Mr Wygas. The courts will expect parties to undertake the costs budgeting exercise properly first time around, and will be slow to revise approved budgets merely because, after the event, it is said that particular items had been omitted or under-valued. I also agree that any other approach could make a nonsense of the whole costs management regime.’

Judges:

Coulson J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 872 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Construction

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472604

A Straume (UK) Ltd v Bradlor Developments Ltd: ChD 29 Jun 1999

An adjudication of a building dispute under the Insolvency Act, was ‘other proceedings’ within the Act, and therefore before such steps were taken against a company in administration, the applicant had first to obtain leave from the court.

Citations:

Times 29-Jun-1999

Statutes:

Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, Insolvency Act 1986 11(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction

Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.77591

Flood v Shand Construction Limited; Morrison Shand Construction Limited and Morrison Construction Limited: CA 18 Dec 1996

A clause limiting an assignment to sums due and payable did not include the costs of investigation.

Citations:

Times 08-Jan-1997, [1996] EWCA Civ 1241

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Floods of Queensferry Limited v Shand Construction Limited, Morrison Shand Limited, Morrison Construction Limited QBD 13-Feb-1997
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Contract

Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.80610

Beck Interiors Ltd v UK Flooring Contrcators Ltd: TCC 4 Jul 2012

Adjudication enforcement raising issues, the first being whether all or part of a dispute or disputes had crystallised before the adjudication was commenced and the second being whether part of the adjudicator’s decision can be severed leaving the rest to be enforced.

Judges:

Akenhead J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 1808 (TCC), [2012] BLR 417

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction, Arbitration

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.463091

Louis v Sadiq: CA 22 Nov 1996

The defendant neighbour had carried out construction works on a joint structure involving its demolition. He had not complied with the requirements of the 1917 Act.
Held: A neighbour doing work on a party wall without complying with the requirements of the Act was creating a nuisance, and he made himself liable for special damages, including some financial losses. A later award under the Act does not relieve a building owner from liability in nuisance or interference with rights of support for works undertaken before the date of the award, and he could not rely upon a defence in the Act, having later complied with it, to excuse his earlier wrong.

Judges:

Evans LJ

Citations:

Gazette 13-Dec-1996, Times 22-Nov-1996, [1997] 1 EGLR 136

Statutes:

London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Rodrigues v Sokal TCC 30-Jul-2008
The parties owned either half of a semi-detached residence. The defendant had undertaken substantial redevelopment works, and the claimant sought damages under the 1996 Act for his failures to follow that Act. The issues had been taken to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Damages, Construction

Updated: 03 November 2022; Ref: scu.83220

North West Thames Regional Health Authority v Shephard Robson (A Firm) and Others: CA 23 Jan 1996

A main employer may apply to the court for the construction of the meaning of sub-contracts with main contractor. A declaration was available to a Plaintiff in respect of sub-contractors only if part of scheme.

Citations:

Times 23-Jan-1996, Ind Summary 12-Feb-1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Construction

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.84345

B Hargreaves Ltd v Action 2000 Ltd: CA 15 Feb 1993

A builder was sued for damages, and sought to set off against the damages claimed an as yet unquantified cross claim which was dependent upon a valuation to be carried out, that claim was insufficiently certain or ascertained to permit it to be used by way of set off.

Citations:

Ind Summary 15-Feb-1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Damages, Construction

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.78040

Industrial Contracting Services Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 4 May 2011

Construction Industry Scheme – Cancellation of registration for gross payment (Finance Act 2004 s.66) – Whether there was a ‘reasonable excuse’ (Finance Act 2004 Sch 11 para 4(4)(a)) – Proportionality – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 290 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax, Construction

Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.443050

Eagle v Redlime Ltd: QBD 4 Apr 2011

The builder replied to a claim in negligence that it was out of time. They had built a concrete base for a kennels. The claimant said that they had not constructed proper foundations, and that he had come to know this only within the limitation period when it began to crack.

Judges:

Eder J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 838 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 14A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Limitation, Construction

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.431736

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

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

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 17 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Taxes Management, Construction

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428201

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

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

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 477 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax, Construction

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.426590

Sidgwick v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 8 Sep 2010

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

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 421 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Construction

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.426595

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

Challenge to validity of arbitration agreement

Judges:

Mummery, Lloyd, Stanley Burnton LJJ

Citations:

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

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction, Arbitration

Updated: 25 August 2022; Ref: scu.424976

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

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

Judges:

Nourse LJ, Slade LJ

Citations:

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

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Construction, Arbitration

Updated: 20 August 2022; Ref: scu.245557

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

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

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 58 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction, Taxes Management

Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.408916

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

Citations:

[2010] EWCA Civ 139

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd TCC 31-Aug-2005
A third party television company sought access to the particulars of claim and other pleadings.
Held: HH Judge Wilcox said: ‘There can be no legitimate distinction drawn between decisions made in interlocutory proceedings and those at final . .
See Also – Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd TCC 5-Jun-2006
. .
See Also – Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another CA 20-Dec-2006
. .
See Also – Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd (No. 2) TCC 31-Jan-2007
. .
See Also – Multiplex Construction (Uk) Ltd v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd TCC 8-Feb-2007
Application for permission to appeal. Jackson J considered whether permission to appeal should have been requested at the hearing: ‘It seems to me that I have got to interpret the provisions of Rule 52.3 and the provisions of the Practice Direction . .
See Also – Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd (No. 2) TCC 6-Mar-2007
. .
See Also – Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd (No 3) TCC 12-Mar-2007
. .
See Also – Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd CA 27-Apr-2007
The court construed an agreement supplemental to a construction contract. . .
See Also – Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another CA 21-Dec-2007
. .
See Also – Multiplex Construction Ltd v Cleveland Bridge Ltd and Another CA 6-Feb-2008
. .
See Also – Multiplex Construction (Uk) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another TCC 7-Feb-2008
. .
See Also – Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another TCC 19-Mar-2008
. .
See Also – Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another TCC 29-Sep-2008
. .
See Also – Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another (No 7) TCC 29-Sep-2008
Last stage of the Wembley stadium construction dispute. Jackson J, interpreting Carver said that it set out: ‘how the court ought to approach the matter in circumstances where: (a) one party has made an offer which was nearly but not quite . .

Cited by:

See Also – Cleveland Bridge Uk Ltd and Another v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd CA 31-Mar-2010
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Contract

Updated: 15 August 2022; Ref: scu.402941

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

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

Citations:

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

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Mark Rowlands v Berni Inns Ltd CA 1985
The plaintiff owned the freehold and had let the basement to the defendant. The plaintiff insured the building. The defendant covenanted to pay to the plaintiff an insurance rent equal to the proportionate cost of insuring the part of the building . .

Cited by:

Cited – Scottish and Newcastle Plc v G D Construction (St Albans) Ltd TCC 29-Mar-2001
The defendant contracted to refurbish premises belonging to the claimant. A fire caused by a sub-contractor caused damage, and the cost was sought from the defendant. He claimed that the standard form contract excluded its liability, including . .
Appeal from – Co-Operative Retail Services Limited and others v Taylor Young Partnership and others HL 25-Apr-2002
Whilst a substantial new building was being constructed, it was damaged by fire caused by the negligence of several contractors. The case concerned apportionment of liability.
Held: The appeal failed. The parties could by agreement vary the . .
Cited – Gard Marine and Energy Ltd and Another v China National Chartering Company Ltd and Another SC 10-May-2017
The dispute followed the grounding of a tanker the Ocean Victory. The ship was working outside of a safe port requirement in the charterparty agreement. The contract required the purchase of insurance against maritime war and protection and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Insurance

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.147240

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

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

Judges:

HHJ Stephen Davies

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1906 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

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

Cited by:

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

Construction, Limitation

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.361479

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

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

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

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

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

Multiplex Construction (Uk) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another: TCC 7 Feb 2008

Judges:

Jackson J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 231 (TCC)

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 – 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
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another TCC 19-Mar-2008
. .
See Also – Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another TCC 29-Sep-2008
. .
See Also – Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another (No 7) TCC 29-Sep-2008
Last stage of the Wembley stadium construction dispute. Jackson J, interpreting Carver said that it set out: ‘how the court ought to approach the matter in circumstances where: (a) one party has made an offer which was nearly but not quite . .
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: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.265937