Tag: Construction

Reed v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 28 Jan 2011

FTTTx INCOME TAX – schedule D – trade – deduction – expenses – building subcontractor – working at different building sites for successive short periods – cost of travel between home and site – appeal succeeds

Jennifer Trigger (Judge)
[2011] UKFTT 92 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Income Tax, Construction

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.442829

Balfour Beatty Regional Construction Ltd v Grove Developments Ltd: CA 13 Oct 2016

Contractor’s responsibility for stage payments

Appeal by a building contractor against a decision that there is no entitlement to interim payments in the period after the contractual date for practical completion. The principal issues are (i) how some rather unusual amendments to the standard form building contract should be construed and (ii) how section 109 of the 1996 Act applies in the circumstances of this case.

Longmore, Jackson, Vos LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 990, [2016] WLR(D) 522
Bailii, WLRD
Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 109
England and Wales

Construction, Contract

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.570174

Direktor Na Direktsia v Orfey Balgaria Eood: ECJ 19 Dec 2012

dndirektsia_obeECJ2012

ECJ VAT – Directive 2006/112/EC – Articles 63, 65, 73 and 80 – Establishment by natural persons of a building right in favour of a company in exchange for construction services by that company for those persons – Barter contract – VAT on construction services – Chargeable event – When chargeable – Payment on account of the entire consideration – Payment on account – Basis of assessment for a transaction in the event of consideration in the form of goods or services – Direct effect

C Toader, acting P
C-549/11, [2012] EUECJ C-549/11
Bailii
Directive 2006/112/EC

European, VAT, Construction

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.468764

Brickfield Properties Ltd v Newton: CA 1971

Court’s Investigation of Construction Claims

The court heard an application to amend pleadings to add a claim about negligent supervision of a construction. Sachs LJ said: ‘Where there are found in completed buildings serious defects of the type here under review the facts relating to design, execution and superintendence are inextricably entangled until such time as the court succeeds in elucidating the position through evidence. The design has inevitably to be closely examined even if the only claim relates to superintendence, and all the more so if the designs are, as is further alleged here, experimental or such as need amplification in the construction progresses. The architect is under a continuing duty to check that his design will work in practice and to correct any errors as they emerge. It savours of the ridiculous for the architect to be able to say, as it was here suggested to him that he could say: ‘true, my design was faulty, but, of course, I saw to it that the contractors followed it faithfully’ and be enabled on that ground to succeed in the action.
The same, or substantially the same set of facts, falls to be investigated in relation to the design claim and the superintendence claim. The plans and specifications and ancillary documents are relevant to the superintendence claim as well as to the designer claim: hence the inability of the defendant to allege prejudice with regard to the preparation of his defence if this appeal is allowed. Accordingly, the ‘new cause of action’ falls within the ambit of RSC Ord. 20 r. 5(5), and it is one which the court has jurisdiction to permit to be pursued’.

Sachs LJ, Edmund Davies LJ
[1971] 1 WLR 862, [1971] 3 All ER 328
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Roberts v Gill and Co Solicitors and Others SC 19-May-2010
The claimant beneficiary in the estate sought damages against solicitors who had acted for the claimant’s brother, the administrator, saying they had allowed him to take control of the assets in the estate. The will provided that property was to be . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Limitation, Construction

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.415957

Steel v Young: SCS 11 Jan 1907

‘The main question to be disposed of under this appeal is that which is raised by the fact that the pursuer in building the walls of the house used milled lime instead of cement mortar as required by the specification.
In making that departure from the specification the pursuer was acting in accordance with the orders of the architect, but I am of opinion that nevertheless he must be regarded as being in breach of his contract in a question with the defender if the architect was not authorised by the latter to substitute the one material for the other.’

Lord Low
[1907] ScotCS CSIH – 4, 1907 SC 360, [1907] SLR 44 – 291
Bailii, Bailii
Scotland

Construction, Contract

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.279272

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. Reasonableness is a part of the primary assessment of damages as well as of mitigation of damage.
Lord Cohen said: ‘the learned editors of Hudson’s Building and Engineering Contracts, 8th ed. (1959) say at p.319 that there are in fact three possible bases of assessing damages, namely, (a) the cost of reinstatement; (b) the difference in cost to the builder of the actual work done and work specified; or (c) the diminution in value of the work due to the breach of contract. They go on: ‘There is no doubt that wherever it is reasonable for the employer to insist upon reinstatement the courts will treat the cost of reinstatement as the measure of damage.’ In the present case it could not be disputed that it was reasonable for the appellants to insist upon reinstatement and in these circumstances it necessarily follows that on the question of damage the trial judge arrived at the right conclusion.’
Lord Upjohn stated that in a case of defective building work reinstatement was the normal measure of damages.

Lord Upjohn, Lord Guest, Lord Cohen and Lord Pearson
[1966] 1 AC 406, [1965] 3 All ER 619
England and Wales
Cited by:
Considered – 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 – 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 – 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 . .
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 – Darlington Borough Council v Wiltshier Northern Ltd CA 28-Jun-1994
The plaintiff council complained of the work done for it by the defendant builder.
Held: Steyn LJ said: ‘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. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Construction

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.192627

Swain v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 20 May 2013

FTTTx VAT – DIY residential conversion – conversion of barn to house – planning permission limiting occupation of property to manager or proprietor of holiday accommodation business to be operated from adjacent barns (for which planning permission also obtained) – whether conversion work was carried out in course or furtherance of a business – no – whether the separate use, or disposal of the property was prohibited by the planning permission for the purposes of Note (2)(c) to Group 5, Schedule 8 VAT Act 1994 – yes – appeal dismissed

[2013] UKFTT 316 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

VAT, Construction

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.513464

Homer Burgess Ltd v Chirex (Annan) Ltd: OHCS 25 Jan 2000

Although an adjudicator’s decision would normally be binding on the parties pending an appeal, that was not the case where the mistake alleged was as to his jurisdiction. In such cases the decision was reviewable, and was ineffective as a decision under the Act.
163696
Times 25-Jan-2000, [1999] ScotCS 264
Bailii
Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 108
Scotland
Citing:
Cited – Yarmouth v France CA 11-Aug-1887
The plaintiff was employed by the defendant to drive carts. He objected that the horse had a vicious nature, but was obliged to drive it in any event. The horse kicked him.
Held: For the purposes of the 1880 Act, the plaintiff was an employee, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 September 2021; Ref: scu.81458

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 end. Later Mr Forsyth wanted the depth increased to 7ft 6in. He had a conversation with Mr Hall, who owned or controlled the plaintiff company. Mr Hall agreed to increase the depth without extra charge, but built it to the original specification.
Held: The damages payable for the incorrect building of a swimming pool may be the cost of rebuilding it according to correct specification.
Dillon LJ, dissented, saying: ‘If the evidence had been that the value of the pool as constructed was less than the value of a pool with a depth of 7 ft 6 in as contracted for, but that the loss of value was substantially less than the andpound;21,560 cost of reinstatement, then, given the finding that the pool as constructed is still deep enough to be perfectly safe to dive into, the obvious course would have been to award Mr Forsyth the loss of value. The basis of that would have been reasonableness. He has no absolute right to be awarded the cost of reinstatement. I see no reason, therefore, why if there has been no loss in value, he should automatically become entitled to the cost of reinstatement, however high. That would be a wholly unreasonable conclusion in law. Accordingly, I agree with the judge’s approach and would dismiss this appeal.’
Staughton LJ held that Mr Forsyth was entitled to the cost of reinstatement, however expensive, since there was no other way of giving him what he had contracted for. While reasonableness lies at the heart of the rule that a plaintiff must mitigate his damage, it plays no part at all where there is no cheaper remedy available for the defendant’s breach of contract: ‘What money will place him ‘in the same situation . . as if the contract had been performed?’ The answer, on the facts of this case, is the cost of replacing the pool. Otherwise, a builder of swimming pools need never perform his contract. He can always argue that 5 ft in depth is enough for diving, even if the purchaser has stipulated for 6, 7 or 8 ft, and pay no damages. In my judgment the key lies in the proposition of Oliver J that reasonableness is a matter of mitigation. It is unreasonable of a plaintiff to claim an expensive remedy if there is some cheaper alternative which would make good his loss. Thus he cannot claim the cost of reinstatement if the difference in value would make good his loss by enabling him to purchase the building or chattel that he requires elsewhere. But if there is no alternative course which will provide what he requires, or none which will cost less, he is entitled to the cost of repair or reinstatement even if that is very expensive . . Since there is no other alternative which will provide that which he has contracted for, he is entitled to incur that expense and charge it to the defendant.’
It was irrelevant that Mr Forsyth did not intend to rebuild the pool. What a plaintiff does with his damages is no concern to the defendant.
Mann LJ accepted that there may be cases where it would be unreasonable to award the cost of rectifying a failed project. But this was not such a case, because the bargain was for what Mann LJ called ‘a personal preference’. Although the value of the pool was the same, as found by the judge, Mr Forsyth was entitled to have his personal preference satisfied. The only way that could be done was by rebuilding the pool. Since the majority of the court awarded the full cost of reinstatement, they set aside the judge’s award of andpound;2,500 general damages for loss of amenity.
Mann LJ, Dillon LJ, Staughton LJ
Gazette 16-Feb-1994, Times 07-Jan-1994, [1994] 3 All ER 801, [1994] 1 WLR 650
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – 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 – Hunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd HL 25-Apr-1997
The claimant, in a representative action complained that the works involved in the erection of the Canary Wharf tower constituted a nuisance in that the works created substantial clouds of dust and the building blocked her TV signals, so as to limit . .
Cited – 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 August 2021; Ref: scu.88940

J P Whitter (Waterwell Engineers) Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs: CA 24 Nov 2016

Important point of principle concerning the power of HMRC, to cancel the registration of a taxpayer for gross payment under the legislation which governs the Construction Industry Scheme.
Jackson, Christopher Clarke, Henderson LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 1160, [2016] WLR(D) 630, [2016] STI 3058, [2016] BTC 45, [2017] STC 149
Bailii, WLRD
Finance Act 2004, Income Tax (Construction Industry Scheme) Regulations 2005
England and Wales
Citing:
At FTTTx – J P Whitter (Waterwell Engineers) Ltd v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 18-Oct-2012
FTTTxp INCOME TAX – construction industry scheme – cancellation of gross payment status – s66 Finance Act 2004 – HMRC discretion – whether properly exercised – Failure to take into account effect of cancellation . .
At UTTC – Revenue and Customs v J P Whitter (Water Well Engineers) Ltd UTTC 13-Jul-2015
UTTC INCOME TAX – construction industry scheme – cancellation of gross payment status – s 66 Finance Act 2004 – HMRC discretion – scope of – whether properly exercised – failure to take into account effect of . .

Cited by:
At CA – JP Whitter (Water Well Engineers) Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 13-Jun-2018
The taxpayers registration under the Construction Industry Scheme had been withdrawn. The Court was now asked whether HMRC are obliged, or at least entitled, to take into account the impact on the taxpayer’s business of the cancellation of its . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 July 2021; Ref: scu.571935

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

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 June 2021; Ref: scu.78203

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 . . .’
Dillon, Waite and Steyn LJJ
Times 04-Jul-1994, Independent 29-Jun-1994, Gazette 12-Oct-1994, [1995] 1 WLR 68
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 May 2021; Ref: scu.79806

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.
Times 29-Jun-1999
Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, Insolvency Act 1986 11(3)
England and Wales

Updated: 20 April 2021; 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.
Times 08-Jan-1997, [1996] EWCA Civ 1241
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
. .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 April 2021; 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.
Akenhead J
[2012] EWHC 1808 (TCC), [2012] BLR 417
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 15 April 2021; 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.
Evans LJ
Gazette 13-Dec-1996, Times 22-Nov-1996, [1997] 1 EGLR 136
London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 April 2021; 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.
Times 23-Jan-1996, Ind Summary 12-Feb-1996
England and Wales

Updated: 10 April 2021; 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.
Ind Summary 15-Feb-1993
England and Wales

Updated: 09 April 2021; 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
[2011] UKFTT 290 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 15 March 2021; 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.
Eder J
[2011] EWHC 838 (QB)
Bailii
Limitation Act 1980 14A
England and Wales

Updated: 07 March 2021; 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
[2011] UKFTT 17 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 04 March 2021; 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
[2010] UKFTT 477 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 02 March 2021; Ref: scu.426590

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
[2010] UKFTT 58 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 24 February 2021; Ref: scu.408916

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

[2010] EWCA Civ 139
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd TCC 31-Aug-2005
A third party television company sought access to the particulars of claim and other pleadings.
Held: HH Judge Wilcox said: ‘There can be no legitimate distinction drawn between decisions made in interlocutory proceedings and those at final . .
See Also – 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
. .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 February 2021; 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.
[2000] EWCA Civ 207, [2000] BLR 461, [2001] Lloyd’s Ins Law Rep 122
Bailii
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 February 2021; 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.
HHJ Stephen Davies
[2009] EWHC 1906 (TCC)
Bailii
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 February 2021; Ref: scu.361479

Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd and Another: TCC 29 Sep 2008

[2008] EWHC 2280 (TCC), 122 Con LR 88
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd TCC 31-Aug-2005
A third party television company sought access to the particulars of claim and other pleadings.
Held: HH Judge Wilcox said: ‘There can be no legitimate distinction drawn between decisions made in interlocutory proceedings and those at final . .
See Also – 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
. .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 February 2021; 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.
Coulson J
[2008] EWHC 1927 (TCC)
Bailii
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
. .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 February 2021; Ref: scu.276491

Fitzpatrick Contractors Ltd v Tyco Fire and Integrated Solutions (UK) Ltd: TCC 13 Jun 2008

Coulson J
[2008] EWHC 1391 (TCC)
Bailii
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
. .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 February 2021; Ref: scu.270343

Fitzpatrick Contractors Ltd v Tyco Fire and Integrated Solutions (UK) Ltd (Prelinary Issues): TCC 13 Jun 2008

Coulson J
[2008] EWHC 1301 (TCC)
Bailii
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
. .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 February 2021; 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. ‘
Dyson J
[2000] EWHC Technology 178, 70 Con LR 1, [2000] BLR 272
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 07 February 2021; Ref: scu.266721