Tag: Construction

Stiell Ltd v Riema Control Systems Ltd: IHCS 28 Jun 2000

Contractors had been called upon to carry out work beyond that originally requested, and sought payment, and had arrested a payment in the hands of a third party. Before raising the action they had referred the matter to adjudication under the Act.
Held: The fact of the reference did not change the fact of the claim, and the effect of the arbitrator’s decision in rejecting the claim was not like that of a certifying engineer or architect.

Citations:

Times 28-Jun-2000

Statutes:

Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Arbitration, Construction, Scotland

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89556

Invercargill City Council v Hamlin: PC 12 Feb 1996

(New Zealand) Seventeen years earlier the plaintiff had asked a builder to construct a house for him, but it now appeared that the foundations had been inadequate. The building company no longer being in existence, he sought damages from the local authority which had supervised the construction.
Held: A Local Authority was liable for economic losses for a negligent inspection of a house during construction. Murphy had not been followed in New Zealand and the Privy Council accepted that this was justified. The Pirelli date of physical damage had also been discarded in favour of the date of discoverability. The decision in Pirelli was unfortunate: Once it is appreciated that the loss in respect of which the plaintiff in the present case is suing is loss to his pocket, and not for physical damage to the house or foundations, then most, if not all the difficulties surrounding the limitation question fall away. The plaintiff’s loss occurs when the market value of the house is depreciated by reason of the defective foundations, and not before. If he resells the house at full value before the defect is discovered he suffers no loss. Thus in the common case the occurrence of the loss and the discovery of the loss will coincide . . But the plaintiff cannot postpone the start of the limitation period by shutting his eyes to the obvious . . . In other words the cause of action accrues when the cracks become so bad and all the defects so obvious, that any reasonable home-owner would call in an expert. Since the defects would then be obvious to a potential buyer or his expert, that marks the moment when the market value of the building is depreciated and therefore the moment when economic loss occurs. Their Lordships do not think it is possible to define the moment more accurately. The measure of the loss will then be the cost of repairs if it is reasonable to repair, or the depreciation in the market value if it is not . . . This approach avoids almost all the practical and theoretical difficulties to which the academic commentators have drawn attention and which led to the rejection of Pirelli by the Supreme Court of Canada . . . The approach is consistent with the underlying principle that a cause of action accrues when, but not before, all the elements necessary to support the plaintiff’s claim are in existence. For in the case of a latent defect in a building the element of loss or damage which is necessary to support a claim for economic loss in tort does not exist so long as the market value of the house is unaffected. Whether or not it is right to describe an undiscoverable crack as damage, it clearly cannot affect the value of the building on the market. The existence of such a crack is thus irrelevant to the cause of action . . . Whether Pirelli should still be regarded as good law in England is not for their Lordships to say. What is clear is that it is not good law in New Zealand.

Judges:

Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Mustill, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Sir Michael Hardie Boys

Citations:

Times 15-Feb-1996, 50 Con LR 105, [1996] AC 624, [1996] UKPC 56, 78 BLR 78, [1996] 1 NZLR 513, [1996] 1 All ER 756

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – 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 – Pirelli General Cable Works v Oscar Faber and Partners HL 2-Jan-1983
The plaintiff asked the defendant consulting engineer to design an extension to their factory in 1969. Not later than in April 1970, cracks developed in the chimney. In 1977 the cause of the damage was discovered. It arose from design faults in the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Abbott and Another v Will Gannon and Smith Ltd CA 2-Mar-2005
The claimant had employed the defendants to design refurbishment works for their hotel. The work was said to be negligent, and the claimant sought damages. The defendant argued as a preliminary point that the claim was time barred. The question was . .
Cited – W v W; J v Raewyn Bell PC 19-Jan-1999
PC (New Zealand) The claimants sught to recover exemplary damages from defendants convicted of criminal offences against them.
Held: There were differences in the system between New Zealand and the English . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Construction, Local Government, Negligence

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.82411

Channel Island Ferries Ltd v Cenargo Navigation Ltd (The Rozel): QBD 5 Apr 1994

Arbitrator to award all costs even if award much less than original claim.
Phillips J said: ‘It is always necessary to exercise the greatest care before applying the reasoning in one case to a different factual situation, and this is particularly true in the field of damages. The majority of the Court in Ruxley Electronics did not hold that a plaintiff can recover in damages the cost of remedial measures which are unreasonable. They held that, in the circumstances of that case it was not unreasonable for the plaintiff to spend the substantial sum necessary to have what he had contracted for. The test of what was reasonable had to have regard to his personal preference, as expressed in the depth of water that he had contractually required. This reasoning can be applied to a requirement which is incorporated in a contract as an end in itself, reflecting a personal preference of the contracting party. It does not apply where the contractual requirement is not an end in itself, but is inserted into a commercial contract because it has financial implications. If, in such a case, the contractual requirement is not met, the costs of remedial measures will not normally be recoverable as damages if they are disproportionate to the financial consequences of the breach. If that is the case it will not be reasonable to incur those costs. The damages recoverable will be those necessary to compensate for the financial consequences of the breach.’

Judges:

Phillips J

Citations:

Times 05-Apr-1994, [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 161

Citing:

Cited – Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth CA 7-Jan-1994
In 1986, the defendant, wanted a swimming pool adjoining his house. He contracted with the plaintiffs. The contract price for the pool, with certain extras, was 17,797.40 pounds including VAT. The depth of the pool was to be 6 ft 6 in at the deep . .

Cited by:

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

Arbitration, Damages, Construction

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78974

Jacob and Youngs Inc v Kent: 1921

Court of Appeals of New York. A building contract specified that the plumbing should use a particular type of piping. In fact the builder used a different type of piping. Cardozo J. stated: ‘In the circumstances of this case, we think the measure of the allowance is not the cost of replacement, which would be great, but the difference in value, which would be either nominal or nothing . . It is true that in most cases the cost of replacement is the measure . . The owner is entitled to the money which will permit him to complete, unless the cost of completion is grossly and unfairly out of proportion to the good to be obtained. When that is true, the measure is the difference in value. Specifications call, let us say, for a foundation built of granite quarried in Vermont. On the completion of the building, the owner learns that through the blunder of a subcontractor part of the foundation has been built of granite of the same quality quarried in New Hampshire. The measure of allowance is not the cost of reconstruction. ‘There may be omissions of that which could not afterwards be supplied exactly as called for by the contract without taking down the building to its foundations, and at the same time the omission may not affect the value of the building for use or otherwise, except so slightly as to be hardly appreciable.’

Judges:

Cardoza J

Citations:

(1921) 230 NY 239

Cited by:

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

Damages, Construction, International

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.526102

Allied London and Scottish Properties Plc v Riverbrae Construction Ltd: OHCS 12 Nov 1999

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.

Citations:

Times 12-Nov-1999

Statutes:

Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 108

Construction, Scotland

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.77760

Lloyds Bank plc v Guardian Assurance plc: CA 1986

The statutory control over building works provided under s.60 is capable of operating quite separately from the private law tort of nuisance.

Judges:

Sir John Arnold P and Nourse LJ

Citations:

[1986] 35 BLR 34

Statutes:

Control of Pollution Act 1974 60

Cited by:

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

Nuisance, Construction

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.266303

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

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: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.245557

Bovis Construction (Scotland) Ltd v Whatlings Construction Ltd: HL 19 Oct 1995

The managing contractors sought damages from a sub-contractor. The contract was on a printed form and in letters. A letter limited time related damages to pounds 100,000. The main contractors sought a much larger sum.
Held: A clause seeking to limit liability must be clear in what it restricts, and is to be read strictly. The sub-contractors had wholly failed to show that the clause could cover their repudiatory breach leading to a termination of the contract. Time was not relevant for this clause after the breach. Appeal dismissed.

Citations:

Gazette 24-Jan-1996, Times 19-Oct-1995, [1995] CLY 5569, 1995 SLT 1339

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Ailsa Craig Fishing Co Ltd v Malvern Fishing Co Ltd HL 26-Nov-1981
Even though a shipowner who had carried cargo on deck was not entitled to rely on the exceptions to liability in his contract, a limitation clause was different and should not be construed by reference to the specially exacting standards applicable . .
Appeal from – Bovis Construction (Scotland) Ltd v Whatlings Construction Ltd OHCS 1994
Correspondence preceding a contract could be looked at to determine the circumstances in which a provision in the contract was intended to apply.
Lord President Hope said: ‘In my opinion the issue which has arisen between the parties in this . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Construction, Scotland

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.78513

Oswald v Countrywide Surveyors Ltd: 1996

The evidential burden of establishing betterment is on the defendant.

Citations:

(1996) 50 Con LR 1

Cited by:

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

Construction, Damages

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.238588

Scottish Special Housing Association v Wimpey Construction UK Ltd: HL 1986

The court acknowledged the practice in construction contracts making an express link between the liability imposed on the contractor, the specific aspect of such liability which iwas excluded and the existence of insurance (intended to benefit both contractor and employer) in respect of that excluded liability.

Citations:

[1986] 1 WLR 995, [1986] 2 All ER 957

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Scottish and Newcastle plc v GD Construction (St Albans) Ltd CA 22-Jan-2003
The employer and main contractor had contracted under the JCT conditions. The employer had been obliged to insure the property for fire in their joint names, but had not done so. After a fire caused by the negligence of a sub-contractor, he sued. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.181188

Harbour and General Works Ltd v The Environment Agency: CA 22 Oct 1999

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.

Citations:

Times 22-Oct-1999, Gazette 10-Nov-1999, [1999] BLR 409

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – J T Mackley and Company Ltd v Gosport Marina Ltd TCC 3-Jul-2002
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration, Contract, Construction

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81226

Clark Contracts v The Burrell Co (Construction Management) Ltd (Second Debate): ScSf 1 Oct 2002

Judges:

Sheriff J.A. Taylor

Citations:

2002 SLT 103

Links:

ScotC

Statutes:

Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 111

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – Rupert Morgan Building Services (LLC) Ltd v Jervis and Jervis CA 12-Nov-2003
The defendants had engaged the claimants under standard form clauses for construction work. They issued a notice to withold payment, but out of time.
Held: The section required the notice to be given with the prescribed period. The risk of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.182021

Minscombe Properties Ltd v Sir Alfred McAlpine and Sons Ltd: CA 1986

O’Connor LJ applied the test of reasonableness in determining whether the cost of reinstatement of land to its contracted for condition should be recoverable as damages.

Judges:

O’Connor LJ

Citations:

(1986) 2 Const LJ 303

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Construction, Damages

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.526100

Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association Ltd v Trollope and Colls Ltd: CA 1986

The employers sued the builders and architects alleging defects in the air conditioning system. Later, cracking and displacement of the walls was discovered, caused allegedly by not having sulphate resisting cement, and defects in the wall ties. Allegations were made against the contractors and the architects and also structural engineers. The question then arose whether the amendments raised new claims for the purposes of section 35 of the 1980 Act.
Held: May LJ said: ‘I think it is necessary to adopt a broad approach to these cases. At the stage of the issue of the writ or the service of the statement of claim, in the present context one is not, as I think, concerned with the minutiae of the cause of action which will ultimately have to be investigated at the trial. In the Limitation Act context, one asks in quite broad terms whether the relevant factual situation . . first came about, first was suable upon more than the three, six or twelve years previously. In the res judicata context one has to ask whether the issues in the hypothetical second action were realistically before the court in the hypothetical first action. Merely to rely upon the propositions which I have already quoted from Brunsden v Humphrey in the judgment of Bowen LJ, which was referred to in the judgment of Sankey LJ in Conquer v Boot , that it is a well settled rule of law that damages resulting from one and the same cause of action must be assessed and recovered once and for all, (entirely accurate though that is and I would not wish, with respect, to differ at all), nevertheless in the instant context I think that it effectively begs the whole question at the outset.’
and ‘In the present case, if one remembers what a cause of action is (for instance, to refer back to the dictum in Letang), if one looks to the size of this particular building, to its complexities, to other matters of degree, to the statement of claim before the proposed reamendment, to the attitude of the appellants’ solicitors in the correspondence at the material time, to which I have referred, and avoids what I think are unnecessary subtleties, I feel bound to agree with the learned judge where he concluded, having referred to the cases on what is a cause of action, the statement of claim in both its original and amended form related only to the air conditioning. I think that its effect was to narrow the causes of action so that they became confined to breaches of contract concerned with air conditioning and negligence resulting in damages to the air conditioning. In the light of the definitions of a cause of action already referred to, I do not think one can look only to the duty on a party, but one must look also to the nature and extent of the breach relied upon, as well as to the nature and extent of the damage complained of in deciding whether, as a matter of degree, a new cause of action is sought to be relied upon. The mere fact that one is considering what are, as it is said, after all only different defects to the same building, does not necessarily mean in any way that they are constituents of one and the same cause of action.
Thus I conclude that whether there is a new cause of action in any circumstances is a mixed question of law and fact. I am satisfied that the learned judge correctly directed himself on the law on this point, and not only am I unable to say that he applied the law incorrectly to the facts of the case, I think positively that he applied that law correctly to the facts of the case.’
and ‘In my opinion, to issue a writ against a party . . when it is not intended to serve a statement of claim, and where one has no reasonable evidence or grounds on which to serve a statement of claim against that particular party, is an abuse of the process of the court.’
Lloyd LJ said: ‘in each case it will depend on the facts whether the damage gives rise to a separate cause of action, or not’ and ‘there may be separate causes of action in relation to the same building, depending upon the facts of the case.’

Judges:

Lloyd LJ and May LJ

Citations:

[1986] 33 BLR 77

Statutes:

Limitation Act 1980 35

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Savings and Investment Bank Ltd (in Liquidation) v Fincken CA 6-Nov-2001
When the court was asked to decide whether a proposed form of amendment to the pleadings would add an issue which was out of time, the court must look to the pleadings before and after the proposed amendment, and the factual issues which would have . .
Cited – McDonalds Corp and Another v Steel and Another CA 25-Mar-1994
The plaintiff company had sued the defendants in defamation with regard to a leaflet publishd and distributed by them. The defendants argued justification. The defendants appealed against an order striking out parts of their defence, saying that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Limitation, Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.183221

Staveley Industries Plc (T/A Ei Whs) v Odebrecht Oil and Gas Services Ltd: TCC 8 Mar 2001

Contracts were entered into to design, engineer and supply equipment for installation on oil and gas rigs. The contractor sought to assert that these were contracts governed by the Act, and the provisions for dispute resolution applied. The court held that the act suggested that the construction was to take place on ‘the Land’ and that there was no intention to include offshore installations within the Act.

Citations:

Gazette 08-Mar-2001

Statutes:

Interpretation Act 1978, Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Contract, Construction, Arbitration

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.89517

North Midland Building Ltd v Cyden Homes Ltd: CA 30 Jul 2018

The court considered the validity of a clause in a building contract which provided that, where there was a delay caused by an event for which the contractor was responsible, and that delay was concurrent with a delay for which the employer was responsible, such concurrent delay would not be taken into account when calculating any extension of time to the contract completion date. It was the appellant contractor’s case that this clause was contrary to what has come to be known as ‘the prevention principle’ and therefore ineffective.

Citations:

[2018[ EWCA Civ 1744

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction, Contract

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620472

Revenue and Customs v Wetheralds Construction Ltd: UTTC 30 May 2018

VALUE ADDED TAX – reduced rate supply -energy saving materials – whether appellant’s Solid Roof System a supply of insulation for roofs within VATA 1994 Schedule 7A Group 2 – no – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 173 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Construction

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.617296

Postermobile Plc v Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Council: QBD 8 Jun 2000

A builder was convicted after having a hoarding erected which announced forthcoming building works, but where such works were not in fact begun within the three month rule. The conviction was upheld, since the regulations were quite clear. The rule was a relaxation, and it was for those taking advantage of that relaxation to bring themselves within it.

Citations:

Gazette 08-Jun-2000

Planning, Construction

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84817

Manchester and District Housing Association v Fearnley Construction Ltd (In Voluntary Liquidation) and Another: ChD 17 Aug 2000

The defendant builder contracted to build on and then convey the land and building to the claimant. The builder charged the land, but failed to complete the building, and went into liquidation. The claimant sought specific performance with a reduction of the purchase price reflecting the breach. The builder asserted that the obligation to sell only arose on the completion of the building. It was held that the claimant was entitled to the land, since the builder could not rely upon his own fault. Any conditionality was gone once the building work began.

Citations:

Gazette 17-Aug-2000

Construction, Land

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83364

Mark Wilkinson Furniture Ltd v Construction Industry Training Board: QBD 10 Oct 2000

The operation of installing kitchens could amount to work altering a building. Accordingly firms carrying out such installations were liable to pay a levy as a contribution to the industry’s training scheme. Although in many cases fittings might only be attached to buildings by screws, the fittings were intended to alter the character of a building, and counted as such.

Citations:

Times 10-Oct-2000

Statutes:

Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1999 159

Citing:

See Also – Mark Wilkinson Furniture Limited and Construction Industry Training Board Admn 12-Jan-2000
. .

Cited by:

See also – Mark Wilkinson Furniture Limited and Construction Industry Training Board Admn 12-Jan-2000
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Construction, Employment

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83411

Johnston v W H Brown Construction (Dundee) Ltd: IHCS 7 Jun 2000

The cost of employing an architect to draw up a schedule of defects under a building contract was not recoverable as damages. The rights under this contract required remediation of the defects discovered and listed, and did not envisage other expenses.

Citations:

Times 07-Jun-2000

Citing:

Appeal from – Johnston v W H Brown Construction (Dundee) Ltd OHCS 12-Nov-1999
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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – Cetelem Sa v Roust Holdings Ltd CA 24-May-2005
The parties were engaged in arbitration proceedings. The claimant had sought and obtained an interim mandatory order intended to prevent the defendant dissipating its assets in anticipation of an adverse ruling. The defendant sought leave to appeal. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Construction

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.82568

Johnston v W H Brown Construction (Dundee) Ltd: OHCS 12 Nov 1999

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.

Citations:

Times 12-Nov-1999

Statutes:

Scottish Building Contract with Contractor’s Design (Jan 1993 rev)

Cited by:

Appeal from – Johnston v W H Brown Construction (Dundee) Ltd IHCS 7-Jun-2000
The cost of employing an architect to draw up a schedule of defects under a building contract was not recoverable as damages. The rights under this contract required remediation of the defects discovered and listed, and did not envisage other . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.82569

Jones v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council and Another: ChD 26 Oct 2000

The architect drew plans for buildings on a development completion of which was taken over by the council. The architect claimed breach of copyright in his plans. The expression of design ideas in an architectural drawing was capable of protection by copyright. An architect might see the plans drawn by another, absorb some of the ideas, and then re-express the ideas in his own way. He may not copy them. The line between them is a fine one. Was the new design a copy of the style or idea or of the expression of the style or idea. One is acceptable, the other is not. The degree of similarity, and method of preparation of the second article were important.

Citations:

Gazette 26-Oct-2000, Times 14-Nov-2000

Statutes:

Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988

Intellectual Property, Construction

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.82614

Herschel Engineering Ltd v Breen Property Ltd: QBD 10 May 2000

A decision of an adjudicator given under the section was not final. It was not in the nature of an arbitration and therefore an appeal against the adjudication did lie to the County Court. A court would not normally allow the same issue to be determined both by the arbitrator and a court, but an adjudication could typically be challenged itself by an arbitration, or by a court, or otherwise as by agreement.

Citations:

Times 10-May-2000

Statutes:

Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998 (1988 No 649)

Arbitration, Local Government, Construction

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81345

Customs and Excise Commissioners v Marchday Holdings Ltd: QBD 31 Jul 1995

A before and after test is to be used to see whether a work is a new building or a conversion of an old building.

Citations:

Ind Summary 31-Jul-1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – Commissioners for Customs and Excise v Marchday Holdings Limited CA 11-Dec-1996
Extensive work on an existing building may be more than a conversion and therefore may be zero-rated. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Commissioners for Customs and Excise v Marchday Holdings Limited CA 11-Dec-1996
Extensive work on an existing building may be more than a conversion and therefore may be zero-rated. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Construction

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.79734

British Telecommunications Plc v James Thomson and Sons (Engineers) Ltd: IHCS 28 Jan 1997

Main contractor’s insurance against a sub-contractor’s negligence relieved the sub-contractor of his duty of care.

Citations:

Times 28-Jan-1997

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – British Telecommunications plc v James Thomson and Sons (Engineers) Ltd HL 29-Oct-1998
A sub-contractor would owe a duty of care to the main contractor and the insurer be entitled to stand subrogated to the main contractor where the sub-contractor was not nominated as being exempt from such duty in the insurance. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.78642

Anstar (Harmonised Conditions for The Marketing of Construction Products : Judgment): ECJ 14 Dec 2017

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products – Harmonised standard EN 1090-1:2009+A1:2011 – Criteria for determining the scope of a standard adopted by the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) in accordance with a mandate of the European Commission – Anchors to be fixed into concrete before it sets and used for fastening facade elements and masonry supports to the building frame

Citations:

C-630/16, [2017] EUECJ C-630/16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Construction

Updated: 02 April 2022; Ref: scu.602065

Adam Architecture Ltd v Halsbury Homes Ltd: CA 2 Nov 2017

Appeal by a firm of architects in litigation concerning its entitlement to recover fees following termination of its engagement. The principal issue in this appeal is whether Section 111 of the 1996 Act applies only to interim payments or whether it also applies to payments due following completion of the works or termination of the contract.

Judges:

Jackson, Lindblom, Thirlwall LJJ

Citations:

[2017] EWCA Civ 1735

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 111

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction, Contract

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.598471

North Midland Building Ltd v Cyden Homes Ltd: TCC 2 Oct 2017

Part 8 claim brought by the claimant against the defendant in relation to what is said to be a point of contractual interpretation of one of the clauses of the contract agreed between the parties for the construction by the claimant of a sizeable house in the Midlands.

Judges:

Fraser J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 2414 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction

Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.595943

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

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

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

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