UK Court decisions

2017 - 20042000 - 1999 - 1998 - 1997 - 1996 - 1995
 

2017


P v Q [2017] EWHC 194 (Comm)

arbitration - tribunal secretary - allegation of improper delegation - application to remove arbitrators

Application dismissed. This judgment provides a discussion on the practical use of tribunal secretaries.
 

Early

Jerram Faulkus Construction Ltd v Fenice Investments Inc EWHC 1935 (TCC).pdf

Hunter v Chief Constable of West Midlands and another [1981] 3 All ER
Civil action relating to accused alleging in criminal trial that he was assaulted by police officers to procure confession (assault not proved and accused convicted). Accused commencing civil proceedings against police claiming damages for assault, purpose of which to prove that the confession which the accused was convicted based on was procured by force. Court considered whether the civil action was an abuse of process of the court.

Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1991] UKHL 2 (26 July 1990)

Invercargill City Council v Hamlin (1996) 1NZLR

2001

Glencot Development & Design Ltd v  Ben Barrett & Son (Contractors) Ltd [2001] EWHC, TCC (2nd & 13th Feb 2001)

2002

Pring & St. Hill Limited v C J Hafner t/a Southern Erectoers (31 July 2002)

2003

St Andrews Bay Development Limited v HBG Management Limited (20 March 2003)

RSL (South West) Limited v Stansell Limited (16 June 2003)

RSL (South West) Limited v Stansell Limited (4 September 2003)

Prentice Island Limited v Castle Contracting Limited (15 December 2003)

Masons (a firm) v WD King Limited (17 December 2003)

Costain Limited v Strathclyde Builders Limited (17 December 2003)

2004


AMEC Capital Projects Limited v Whitefriars City Estates Limited (27 February 2004)

Hurst Stores and Interiors Limited v M.L. Europe Property Limited (CA) (1 April 2004)

Connex South Eastern Limited v MJ Building Services Group (27 July 2004)

Mowlem Plc (t/a Mowlem Marine) v Stena Line Ports Ltd [2004] EWHC 2206 (TCC) (06 October 2004)

CIB Properties Limited v Birse Consrtuction (19 October 2004)
Application by CIB Properties to enforce decision of adjudicator that Birse Construction pay them $2m. Birse sought to prevent enforcement of adjudicator's award with defences including that adjudication was inappropriate in a dispute of this complexity. Judge enforced the adjudicator's decision and ordered Birse to pay the sum required, considering that the adjudicator had acted fairly and to the best of his ability in the circumstances of the complex case.

IDE Contracting Limited v R G Carter Cambridge Limited [2004] EWHC 36 (TCC) 16 January 2004

Judge Havery QC

Enforcement of adjudicator's decision - Adjudicator's jurisdiction - Appointment process for adjudicator

Opposition to application for enforcement based on contention the adjudicator had not been properly appointed. Judge Havery QC concluded that the provisions of the scheme relating to the appointment of the adjudicator had not been complied with in that case and that non-compliance with those provisions deprives the adjudicator of jurisdiction unless the defendant has submitted to the adjudicator's jurisdiction in the full sense of having agreed not only that the adjudicator should rule on the issue of jurisdiction but also that it would be bound by that ruling. In the present case, it was abundantly clear that the defendant did not submit to the jurisdiction of the adjudicator in the sense of agreeing to be bound by his ruling on the issue of his jurisdiction. As such, the adjudicator's decision could not stand.

 

2005


Palmac Contracting Limited v Park Lane Estates Limited (22 March 2005)

Carillion Construction Limited v Devonport Royal Dockyard (26 April 2005)

Wimbledon Construction Company 2000 Limited v Derek Vago (20 May 2005)

John Roberts Architects Limited v Parkcare Home (No. 2) Limited (25 July 2005)

David McLean Contractors Limited v The Albany Building Limited (10 November 2005)

Midland Expressway Limited v Carillion Construction Limited & Ors. (14 November 2005)

Carillion Construction Limited v Devonport Royal Dockyard Limited (CA) (16 November 2005)

Midland Expressway Limited v Carillion Construction Limited & Ors. (24 November 2005)

2006


Ardmore construction Limited v Taylor Woodrow Construction Limited (12 January 2006)

Quietfield Limited v Vascroft Contractors Limited (2 February 2006)

Interserve Industrial Services Limited v Cleveland Bridge UK Limited (6 February 2006)

John Roberts Architects Limited v Parkcare Homes (No. 2) Limited (CA) (9 February 2006)

Robert Cunningham & Ors. v Collett & Farmer (9 February 2006)

M. Rohde Construction v Nicholas Markham-David (20 March 2006)

Midland Expressway Limited & Anr. v Carillion Construction Limited & Ors. (13 June 2006)

Cunningham & Ors v Collett & Farmer [2006] EWHC 1771 (TCC) (13 July 2006)
 

2007

 

PREMIUM NAFTA PRODUCTS LIMITED v FILI SHIPPING COMPANY LIMITED [2007] UKHL 40 17 October 2007

arbitration clause - whether dispute to go to arbitration or court - application for stay

Parties entered into charter agreements; owners alleged these were entered into as a result of bribery. Question of whether the arbitration clauses in the charter agreements were apt to cover the question of whether the contract was procured by bribery and whether it was possible for a party to be bound by submission to arbitration when it alleges that, but for the bribery, it would never have entered into the contract containing the arbitration clause. Section 7 of the Arbitration Act means that invalidity or rescission of the main contract does not necessarily entail the invalidity or rescission of the arbitration agreement. The Court held that the stay was correctly granted. Appeal dismissed.

Fiona Trust & Holding Corp v Privalov [2007] UKHL 40
Appeal by shipowners against the decision that proceedings for a declaration that certain charter-parties had been validly rescinded should be stayed under s9 of the Arbitration Act 1996. Appeal dismissed, Court held that an arbitration clause should be construed in accordance with the presumption that the parties were likely to intend any dispute to be decided by the same tribunal, unless the language made it clear that certain questions were intended to be excluded from the arbitrator's jurisdiction. Applying this, the Judge held that the language of Shelltime 4 contained nothing to exclude disputes about the validity of the contract.

2008


Cantillion Limited v Urvasco Limited (27 February 2008)

Avoncroft Construction Limited v Sharba Homes (CN) Limited (29 April 2008)

Diamond Build Ltd v Clapham Park Homes Ltd [2008] EWHC 1439 (TCC) (25 June 2008)

MULTIPLEX V CLEVELAND HT-04-314 & HT-04-238 29 SEPTEMBER 2008.pdf

AMEC Capital Projects Limited v Whitefriars City Estates Limited (CA) (28 October 2008)

2009

AXA Insurance Ltd v Akther & Darby Solicitors (27 March 2009)

UK MATTHEW REEVE AND RUTH HOSKING  v ADAM CONSTABLE QC and LUCY GARRETT 11 APRIL 2009 Folio No. 1361 & 1622.pdf

Ericsson AB v EADS Defence & Security Systems Ltd (22 October 2009)

Mayhaven Healthcare Limited v David and Theresa Bothma t/a DAB Builders (26 October 2009)

Davies v Jones [2009] EWCA Civ 1164 (29 October 2009)

2010


Dhamija v Sunningdale Joineries Ltd, Lewandowski Willcox Ltd, Mcbains Cooper Consulting Ltd [2010] EWHC 2396 (TCC)

De Beers UK Ltd v Atos Origin It Services UK Ltd [2010] EWHC 3276

Vossloh Aktiengesellschaft v Alpha Trains (UK) Ltd [2010] EWHC 2443 (Ch)

City Inn Ltd v Shepherd Construction Ltd [2010] CSIH 68

Pantelli Associates Ltd v Corporate City Developments Number Two Ltd [2010] EWHC 3189 (TCC)
2 December 2010

 

2011


Simon Carves Ltd v Ensus UK Ltd [2011] EWHC 657 15 March

Dhanani v Crasnianski [2011] EWHC 926 (Comm) 15 April 2011

Lanes Group PLC v Galliford Try Infrastructure Ltd [2011] EWHC 1234 (TCC)

Lanes Group PLC v Galliford Try Infrastructure Ltd [2011] EWHC 1035 (TCC)

Carillion Utility Service Limited v. SP Power Systems Limited [2011] CSOH 139

Lanes Group PLC v Galliford Try Infrastructure Ltd [2011] EWCA CIV 1617

Systech International Limited v PC Harrington Contractors Limited [2011] EWHC 2722 (TCC)

Leander Construction Ltd v Mulalley & Co Ltd [2011] EWHC 3449 (TCC)

ACD (Landscape Architects) Ltd v Overall & Anor [2011] EWHC 3362 (TCC) 15 December 2011

Adyard Abu Dhabi v S D Marine Services [2011] EWHC 848 (Comm)

Woodlands Oak Limited v Conwell [2011] EWCA Civ 254
The home owners had engaged the contractor to carry out works to their property under a cost plus contract.  The parties had not agreed any mechanism for dealing with defects post completion. The Court held that the home owners acted unreasonably by failing to ask their contractor to come back and make good defects.  Consequently, as the remedial works would have been completed by the contractor's sub-contractors, then the Court accepted the argument that the cost to the contractor was nil and that is how much the home owners were awarded.

2012


Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd v Shetlands Islands Council [2012] CSOH12 20 January 2012

NAP Anglia Ltd v Sun-Land Development [2012] EWHC 51 (TCC) 23 January 2012

Herbosch-Kiere Marine Contractors Limited v. Dover Harbour Board [2012] EWHC 84 (TCC) 26 January 2012

ACD (Landscape Architects) Ltd v Overall and Another [2012] EWHC 100 (TCC) 27 January 2012

Sweett (UK) Ltd (formerly Cyril Sweett Ltd) v Michael Wight Homes Ltd [2012] EW Misc 3 (CC) 23 February 2012

Golden Ocean Group Ltd v Salgaocar Mining & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 265 9 March 2012

Walter Lilly & Company Limited v Mackay & Anor [2012] EWHC (TCC) 15 March 2012

UK OLYMPIC DELIVERY AUTH v PERSONS UNKNOWN EWHC 1012 Ch 4 APRIL 2012.pdf

UK OLYMPIC DELIVERY AUTH v PERSONS UNKNOWN EWHC EWHC 18 APRIL 2012 Ch.pdf

Point West London Ltd v Mivan Ltd [2012] EWHC 1223 (TCC) 10 May 2012

Ampurius NU Homes Holdings Ltd v Telford Homes (Creekside) Ltd [2012] EWHC 1820 (Ch) 04 July 2012

Beck Interiors Ltd v UK Flooring Contractors Ltd [2012] EWHC 1808 (TCC) (04 July 2012)

Walter Lilly & Company Limited v Mackay & Anor [2012] EWHC (TCC) 11 July 2012.pdf

The Trustees of Ampleforth Abbey Trust v Turner & Townsend Project Management Ltd [2012] EWHC 2137 (TCC) 27th July 2012

ADS Aerospace Limited v EMS Global Tracking Limited [2012] EWHC 1012 (Ch)

Trebor Bassett Holdings Ltd & Anor v ADT Fire and Security Plc [2012] EWCA Civ 1158 (23 August 2012)

Alstom Power Ltd v Somi Impianti SRL [2012] EWHC 2644 (TCC) (08 October 2012)

PC HARRINGTON CONTRACTORS LTD EWCA 23 OCT 2012.


2013


Arcadis UK Ltd v May and Baker Ltd [2013] EWHC 87 (TCC)
 

2014

Mul v Hutton Construction Limited [2014] EWHC 1797 (TCC)
The Judge noted that whilst the employer's entitlement to damages was subject to a duty to mitigate, the wording of the contract did not explicitly exclude or limit the recoverable damages.  Therefore, the measure of an appropriate deduction for a failure to make good would depend on the circumstances of the case and should mean a deduction which is reasonable in the circumstances.  It was held that the obligation to rectify defects carries with it a right for the contractor to carry out the remedial works and that the contractor must facilitate this by granting access to the property.  The failure to do so, the Judge observed, would amount to a failure to mitigate.

2015


Begum v Hossain [2015] EWCA Civ 717

William Clark Partnership Ltd v Dock St PCT Ltd [2015] EWHC 2923 (TCC).

2000


PANATOWN LTD v ALFRED MCALPINE CONSTRUCTION LTD [2000] 4 All ER 97 27 July 2000

contract - damages for breach - contract to confer benefit on third party - employer engaging contractor to construct building on land owned by third party - contractor executing deed giving third party direct right of action - whether employer entitled to recover substantial damages for breach of contract

Where a contractor was in breach of a contract with the employer to construct a building for a third party, the employer could not recover substantial damages on behalf of the third party if it had been intended that the latter should have a direct cause of action against the contractor to the exclusion of any substantial claim by the employer. Such a case fell outside the scope of the exception to the rule that a claimant could only recover damages for a loss which he himself had suffered. That exception provided a remedy in circumstances where it had been within the contemplation of the contracting parties that breach by one was likely to cause loss to an identified or identifiable stranger to the contract, rather than to the other contracting party. Thus its justification was the necessity of avoiding the disappearance of a substantial claim into a legal 'black hole', and that necessity disappeared where the third party had a right to recover substantial damages, even if those damages might not be identical to those which would have been recovered under the main contract in the same circumstances.


1995


RUXLEY ELECTRONICS AND CONSTRUCTION LTD v FORSYTH [1995] 3 All ER 268 29 June 1995

contract - damages for breach - measure of damages - whether cost of reinstatement or dimunition in value - building contract - performance of contract deficient but no diminution in value - cost of reinstatement disproportionate to prospective benefit - contract to build swimming pool - failure to build pool to specified depth - defect not diminishing value of pool - whether cost of reconstructing pool recoverable - whether full reinstatement to original contractual position reasonable - whether owner entitled to damages to compensate for loss of amenity or satisfaction of personal preference

Where there had been a breach of performance resulting in loss of expectation of performance, satisfaction of a personal preference or a pleasurable amenity but there had been no diminution in value the court could award modest damages to compensate the plaintiff.
About Us

With 20 years experience in the avoidance, management, and resolution of building and construction disputes, the Building Disputes Tribunal is recognised and respected as the leading independent, nationwide provider of specialist dispute resolution services to the building and construction industry.

Find Out More