All articles by Nicholas Gould – Page 3
-
Comment
Without jurisdiction
This was an application for summary judgment pursuant to CPR 24, in relation to an adjudicator’s decision. In or around June 2003 Roselodge Ltd (RL) carried on business buying properties and redeveloping them before renting them to tenants. Westdawn Properties Ltd (WPL) was in the business of refurbishing properties. ...
-
Comment
The non-existent contract
This was an application for summary judgment pursuant to CPR 24, in relation to an adjudicator’s decision. In or around June 2003 Roselodge Ltd (RL) carried on business buying properties and redeveloping them before renting them to tenants. Westdawn Properties Ltd (“WPL”) was in the business of refurbishing properties. ...
-
Comment
A binding decision
The case of William Verry Ltd vs The Mayor and Burgesses of The London Borough of Camden concerned the enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision, but raises the issue of the status of an adjudicator’s decision as a result of the operation of the final certificate provisions in the contract and ...
-
Comment
Unwritten rules
The defendants entered into a building contract in respect of significant refurbishment works that they wanted undertaken at home. The building contractor carried out the works in a manner and at a pace which was not to the defendants liking. The defendants therefore terminated the building contract before the works ...
-
Comment
The adjudication must go on …
Hillview engaged Botes to carry out certain works under a contract that contained adjudication provisions compliant with the requirements of the Construction Act. A dispute arose in relation to Hillview’s entitlement to liquidated and ascertained damages as a consequence of delays in completion of certain sections of the works. Hillview ...
-
Comment
A quay decision
British Ports engaged Hydro Soil Services to carry out strengthening works to quay wall 205 at Southampton. The contract was a lump sum contract based on the ICE conditions as amended. Hydro in turn engaged Haecon NV to carry out the design of the strengthening works to the quay ...
-
Comment
Who gets the final word?
The parties contracted on 2 May 2001 to carry out works in Perth. This comprised alterations to a building in order to produce a water-tight shell. The contract incorporated the conditions of the Scottish Building Contract without Quantities, Contractor’s Design Portion (January 2000 revision), with amendments. The work began on ...
-
Comment
Threat of insolvency
Makers were carrying out refurbishment work to flats in Northampton. They engaged All In One under a subcontract dated 22 November 2004. In July 2005 Makers issued a notice of determination on the basis of lack of supervision or insufficient labour on site. All In One claimed that the contract ...
-
Comment
Giving and receiving
Melville entered into a contract for the design, construction and completion of a residential development in Glasgow. The contract form was the Scottish Building Contract with Contractor's Design Sectional Completion Edition (January 2000 Revision) issued by the SBCC. It incorporated the conditions of the JCT With Contractor's Design 1998. ...
-
Comment
What now for PFI?
The four defendant contractors worked together in a joint venture known as CAMBBA. The secretary of state granted a PFI concession agreement in February 1992 for Midland Expressway Ltd to design, construct and operate the Birmingham Northern Relief Road, known as the M6 Toll Road. Midland and CAMBBA entered into ...
-
Comment
Outside the act
Captiva owned a site in Bournemouth. They contracted with Rybarn, a contractor, to construct 28 flats together with parking. The contract contained an option for Rybarn to take leases in respect of seven of the 28 flats. Clause 3.4 of the contract provided Rybarn with an exclusive right to ...
-
Comment
A £1m payout
McLean brought a summary judgment application in respect of an adjudicator's decision for £1,333,214.18 plus interest and costs. The decision was on the basis that the non-completion certificates in relation to clause 24.1 of the building contract were invalid. As a result liquidated damages could not be deducted by Albany.
-
Comment
The adjudicator is always right
This was an appeal from an order made on 28 April 2005 by Mr Justice Jackson in the TCC. Mr Jackson upheld the adjudicator’s decision and ordered payment for £12,376,454.54 inclusive of interest and VAT.
-
Comment
In black and white
Mr Malnick converted his former offices in Islington into three residential units. The claimant carried out the construction work. The oral agreement was reached on 3 September for the builder to carry out the conversion work. A manuscript note of the telephone conversation recorded the price at £412,000 inclusive ...
-
Comment
Unphased
In 2002 a plan to regenerate Hastings and Bexhill was approved. The proposals were for a mixed development that would proceed in two phases. Phase 1 included the submission of a detailed planning application for infrastructure proposals, and associated surface water attenuation measures, for part of the site. Phase 2 ...
-
Comment
Sorry, that’s discontinued …
A notice of adjudication was issued on 10 June 2004. On 6 July, the claimants served its response. On 7 July the defendant accepted that the adjudicator did not have jurisdiction. The adjudication was discontinued and the defendant paid the adjudicator’s account.The claimant then asked the adjudicator for a decision ...
-
Comment
Praise the Lords
The House of Lords ruling in Lesotho vs Impregilio has done much to restore London’s reputation as the centre of arbitration for international projects
-
Comment
Contracts and cucumbers
The claimant, Hortimax, referred six disputes arising under six different contracts to adjudication by way of serving six separate adjudication notices. The six decisions were delivered in August 2004 by the adjudicator. Hendon, the defendant, was a commercial grower of cucumbers and other vegetables and carries out its operations in ...
-
Comment
Disputing a dispute
The parties had entered into a contract incorporating the ICE conditions, 5th Edition, and the engineer had made a decision in relation to a dispute pursuant to clause 66 of those conditions.
-
Comment
Show your clause
The claimant contractor sought to enforce the decision of an adjudicator made in its favour. The defendant refused to pay on the basis that the adjudicator did not have any jurisdiction to hear the dispute, because there was no construction contract incorporating adjudication provisions. The dispute related to work carried ...
- Previous Page
- Page1
- Page2
- Page3
- Page4
- Next Page