Tag: Construction

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

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

Swindell v Revenue and Customs (VAT – Builders : Do -It-Yourself): FTTTx 1 Feb 2017

FTTTx VAT – DIY self-build scheme – section 35A VATA94 and note 2(c) to Group 5, Schedule 8 VATA94 – whether the separate disposal of the dwelling was prohibited by the terms of a covenant under section 106 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 – terms of covenant considered – held they prohibit a separate disposal of the dwelling – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 132 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.574084

Williams v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 21 Dec 2016

FTTTx (Vat – Exempt Supplies : Buildings) VAT – Zero-rating – Schedule 8 to VAT Act 1994 – Note 2(d) to Group 5 – Construction of new build home – building designed as a dwelling – retrospective planning permission – whether planning permission granted at the time of supply – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 846 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.574015

Maypine Construction Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 19 Dec 2016

FTTTx (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Sub-Contractors In The Construction Industry) INCOME TAX – CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY SCHEME – Regulation 9 CIS Regulations – failure to take reasonable care – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2017] UKFTT 833 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax, Construction

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573996

ASM (Refurbishments and Decorators) Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 12 Dec 2016

FTTTx (Income Tax/Corporation Tax : Sub-Contractors In The Construction Industry) CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY SCHEME – fixed and tax geared penalties – late filing of returns – whether reasonable excuse – no – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2016] UKFTT 822 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Income Tax, Construction

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573967

Smith v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 24 Nov 2016

FTTTx (Vat – Diy Housebuilders’ Scheme) VAT – DIY housebuilders’ scheme – VAT charged at 17.5% – VAT refunded at 5% – correct level of refund -unjust enrichment – HELD – VAT refundable at 17.5% for earlier periods – unjust enrichment – outside jurisdiction – appeal allowed in part.

Citations:

[2016] UKFTT 783 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Construction

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573959

Surrey and Sussex Healthcare Nhs Trust v Logan Construction (South East) Ltd: TCC 13 Jan 2017

Applications for declarations as to the invalidity of an alleged Interim Payment Notice and the validity of an alleged Pay Less Notice.

Judges:

Alexander Nisses QC

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 17 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction, Contract

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.573408

Lalana Hans Place Ltd v Michael Barclay Partnership Llp: TCC 13 Jan 2017

Application by the defendant, dated 6 January 2017, that the claimant be required to answer a request for further information, going to the advice given by the claimant’s expert at the time the decision was taken to undertake remedial work.

Judges:

Coulson J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 29 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Construction

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.573404

STC SpA v Commission, CPL Concordia Soc. Coop: ECFI 1 Dec 2016

ECJ Order – Public works contracts – Procedure for tender – Construction of a trigeneration plant with a gas turbine and related service – Rejection of a tender – Withdrawal of contested measure – No -Place the proceedings

ECLI:EU:T:2016:705, [2016] EUECJ T-355/14 – CO
Bailii
European

Construction

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572613