Construction - 2000

The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database. lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 260,000 case listings, and over 200,000 links to full text judgments. The free service below shows the core information on the case, but is restricted in several ways. A small proportion of cases do allow access to the full lawindexpro information. These cases are selected at random, and may be different on your next visit. The active links through to lawindexpro are extremely powerful allowing full access to all linked cases.  

This page lists 34 cases, and was prepared on 28 October 2012.

Griffin -v- Midas Homes Ltd (2000) 78 Con LR 152
2000 Judge Humphrey LLoyd QC	Arbitration, Construction	Casemap 1 Citers
	In respect of part of their claim in an adjudication, the claimants failed to comply with the requirements of paragraph 1(3) of the statutory scheme for construction contracts which formed an implied term of the contract between the parties. That failure consisted of a lack of clarity in the notice of adjudication. Held: As to that part of the claim, the adjudicator did not have jutisdiction. An adjudicator was held to have had authority to decide some of the questions put before him, but not others. Only the party that sought adjudication was liable for the adjudicator's fees, expenses and costs in so far as they related to the matters which were outside the adjudicator's jurisdiction.

Lobb Partnership Limited -v- Aintree Racecourse Company Limited [2000] 1 Building Law Reports 65
2000 Colman J	Construction, Arbitration	Casemap 1 Citers
	A clause in an agreement provided that disputes might be be dealt with by arbitration but shall otherwise be referred to the English Courts. Held: Each party had a right of election for arbitration. "The English courts have consistently taken the view that, provided that the contract gives a reasonably clear indication that arbitration is envisaged by both parties as a means of dispute resolution, they will treat both parties as bound to refer disputes to arbitration even though the clause is not expressed in mandatory terms."

Mark Wilkinson Furniture Limited and Construction Industry Training Board [2000] EWHC Admin 280
12 Jan 2000 Admn	Construction, Employment	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Link[s] omitted

VHE Construction Plc -v- RBSTB Trust Co Ltd
13 Jan 2000 TCC	Construction
	Adjudication - Compliance with adjudicator's decision - Whether compliance enforceable by summary judgment despite assertion of set-off - Whether set-off raised before date for payment under decision.
	Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 111

Smith (Administrator of Cosslett (Contractors) Ltd) -v- Bridgend County Borough Council [2000] EWCA Civ 1
19 Jan 2000 CA	Company, Construction	Casemap 1 Citers
	Link[s] omitted

Homer Burgess Ltd -v- Chirex (Annan) Ltd [1999] ScotCS 264
25 Jan 2000 OHCS 163696	Arbitration, Scotland, Construction	Casemap 1 Cites
	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.
	Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 108
	Link[s] omitted

Bellefield Computer Services Limited, Unigate Properties Limited; Unigate Dairies Limited; Unigate (Uk) Limited; Unigate Dairies (Western) Limited -v- E Turner and Sons Limited [2000] EWHC Admin 284; [2000] BLR 97
28 Jan 2000 Admn Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Tuckey And Mr. Justice Wall	Construction, Negligence	1 Cites 1 Citers
	The Defendant builders constructed a steel building to be used as, inter alia. a dairy. The original owners sold it to the appellants. A fire spread from the storage area to the rest of the dairy and caused much damage. The Builders, had they followed good building practice and the requirements of the Building Regulations, would have constructed, a compartment wall which would have prevented the spread. The fire passed over the top of the wall which was not constructed to good building practice. The claimant appealed a preliminary ruling that damages for part of the loss were unrecoverable as pure economic loss. Held: The claim amounted to a claim for an omission to act. In many circumstanmces it is not possible to draw a satisfactory line between misfeasance and malfeasance. There was no proper reason to differentiate between the original and subsequent owners. The judge had correctly interpreted and applied the law, and the appeal and cross appeal failed.
	Link[s] omitted

Dew Pitchmastic Plc -v- Birse Construction Ltd [2000] EWHC Technology 169
2 Feb 2000 TCC	Construction, Litigation Practice
	Link[s] omitted

F W Cook Ltd -v- Shimizu (Uk) Ltd [2000] EWHC Technology 152
4 Feb 2000 TCC	Construction, Arbitration
	court-service This was an application under Part 24 of the CPR to enforce an adjudicator's decision given pursuant to the TecSA Rules, version 1.2. The defendant had paid what it considered was due. The questions turned on the meaning to be given to the notice of adjudication or letter of referral and to the decision itself (and on whether the decision might have been outside the jurisdiction of the adjudicator). For the reasons that appear from the judgment the application was dismissed.
	Link[s] omitted

Hilson Moran Partnership -v- Environment Agency [2000] EWCA Civ 35
9 Feb 2000 CA	Construction
	Link[s] omitted

Alfred Mcalpine Construction Limited -v- Panatown Limited [2000] UKHL 43; [2000] 4 All ER 97; [2000] 3 WLR 946; [2001] 1 AC 518
17 Feb 2000 HL Lord Clyde Lord Goff of Chieveley Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle Lord Browne-Wilkinson Lord Millett	Construction, Damages	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	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 under a deed of covenant entered into for this purpose, and so the main contractor would only be entitled to nominal damages. "It would be an extraordinary defect in our law if, where (for example) A enters into a contract with B that B should carry out work for the benefit of a third party, C, A should have no remedy in damages against B if B should perform his contract in a defective manner. Contracts in this form are a commonplace of everyday life."
	Link[s] omitted

Plant Construction Plc -v- Clive Adams Associates and Another
1 Mar 2000 CA	Health and Safety, Construction
	A sub-contractor obliged under contract to carry out works in a certain way and to a specification set down by the main contractor, remained under a duty to warn that employer of any obvious danger. He was subject to the normal standards of behaving with the skill and care of an ordinarily competent contractor whatever was said in the contract about obeying instructions.

Plant Construction Plc -v- Clive Adams Associates, JMH Construction Services (2) 1996 ORB 750
31 Mar 2000 TCC Judge Hicks QC	Damages, Construction	Casemap
	The case had been remitted to the court to settle the apportionment of damages in a case of breach of contract, rather than in tort. When assessing levels of contribution causation alone is important but not the entire criteria. In cases where both parties would have had to act with due care and skill to avoid the damage, the question is whether a breach was causative, whether alone or as being one of concurrent causes with the other's negligence, such that but for the concurrence of those causes the damage would not have occurred.

Henry Boot Construction -v- Alston Combined Cycles [2000] EWCA Civ 99
4 Apr 2000 CA	Construction
	Link[s] omitted

Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Service Trust -v- Watkins Gray International (Uk) [2000] EWCA Civ 120
10 Apr 2000 CA	Construction
	Link[s] omitted

Henry Boot Construction Ltd -v- GEC Alstom Combiined Cycles Ltd
11 Apr 2000 CA	Contract, Construction
	A contract in Standard Institute of Civil Engineers conditions provided that variations in materials should be costed for in line with the costings schedules. The fact that the schedules were in error did not mean that they could departed from. A second clause limiting the application to situations where this provided a reasonable effect could not apply unless the prerequisites of the subsequent clause also applied, and the alterations in materials or works were substantial.

Herschel Engineering Ltd -v- Breen Property Ltd
10 May 2000 QBD	Arbitration, Local Government, Construction
	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.
	Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 - Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998 (1988 No 649)

Johnston -v- W H Brown Construction (Dundee) Ltd
7 Jun 2000 IHCS	Damages, Construction	Casemap 1 Citers
	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.

Postermobile Plc -v- Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Council
8 Jun 2000 QBD	Planning, Construction
	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.

Stiell Ltd -v- Riema Control Systems Ltd
28 Jun 2000 IHCS	Arbitration, Construction, Scotland
	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.
	Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996

Co-operative Retail Services Ltd -v- Taylor Young Partnership Hoare Lea & Partners (a Firm) and Carillion Construction Limited (Formerly Tarmac Construction (Contracts) Ltd, Wimpey Construction UK Limited) and East Midlands Electricity Electrical Installa [2000] EWCA Civ 207; [2000] BLR 461
4 Jul 2000 CA	Construction, Insurance	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Link[s] omitted

KNS Industrial Services Ltd -v- Sindall Ltd [2000] EWHC Technology 75
17 Jul 2000 TCC	Construction
	Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996
	Link[s] omitted

Lafarge Redlands Aggregates Limited (Formerly Redland Aggregates Limited) -v- Shephard Hill Civil Engineering Limited [2000] UKHL 46; [2000] 1 WLR 1621
27 Jul 2000 HL Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Cooke of Thorndon Lord Clyde Lord Hobhouse of Wood-borough Lord Millett	Arbitration, Construction	Casemap 1 Cites
	Once a main contractor chose, under the standard form contract, to have his dispute with one sub-contractor referred to arbitration as part of another dispute with a different contractor, he should complete the procedure within a reasonable time. It was wrong to seek to defer the settlement of one dispute while he sought to reach a settlement with the other, and he had no right to do so.
	Link[s] omitted

Bouygues (Uk) Ltd -v- Dahl-Jensen (Uk) Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 507; [2001] 1 All ER (Comm) 1041; [2001] CLC 927; [2001] 73 Con LR 135; (2001) 3 TCLR 2; [2000] BLR 522; [2001] 1 All ER 1041
31 Jul 2000 CA	Construction
	Housing Grants and Reconstruction Act 1996 108
	Link[s] omitted

ABB Power Construction Ltd -v- Norwest Holst Engineering Ltd [2000] EWHC Technology 68
1 Aug 2000 TCC	Construction
	Court Service Adjudication - Jurisdiction - Contract or contracts for provision of Insulation for Pipework, Boilers etc for a Power Generation project - whether a "Construction Contract" excluded by section 105(2)(c)(ii) of the Part II of the Housing etc Act 1996 (yes) - Whether "site" in same paragraph had to be existing or future generation activity (no).
	Link[s] omitted

Discain Project Services Ltd -v- Opecrime Development Ltd [2000] BLR 402
1 Aug 2000 TCC Honour Judge Bowsher QC	Construction, Arbitration	Casemap 1 Citers
	The applicant sought leave to defend the enforcement of an arbitration award. Held: The adjudicator had accepted oral and written communications with one party, from which the other party was excluded. This was such a serious breach of the rules of natural justice, that the court ought not to give summary judgment enforcing the award. Leave to defend given: “the adjudicator has to conduct the proceedings in accordance with the rules of natural justice or as fairly as the limitations imposed by Parliament permit”.

Whiteways Contractors (Sussex) Ltd -v- Impresa Castelli Construction Ltd [2000] EWHC Technology 67
9 Aug 2000 TCC	Construction
	Application for summeary judgment in application to enforce arbitration award under the Act.
	Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996
	Link[s] omitted

Stent Foundations Ltd -v- M J Gleeson Group Plc [2000] EWHC Technology 66
9 Aug 2000 TCC	Contract, Construction	1 Cites
	The defendant company sought to rely upon an exemption clause. Held: Applying standard rules for contract interpretation, the exemption clause was to be construed against the one proposing it. At best the clause was ambiguous, and the defendants claim for exemption failed. The clause did not satisfy the first two tests set down in the Canada Steamship case, and the controversial third test could be ignored.
	Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
	Link[s] omitted

Bouygues (Uk) Ltd -v- Dahl-Jensen (Uk) Ltd (In Liquidation) [2000] BLR 522
17 Aug 2000 CA Chadwick LJ	Construction, Arbitration, Commercial, Insolvency	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	When the decision of an adjudicator was challenged, the court should ask whether the adjudicator had either asked the right question but in the wrong way, or whether he had even answered the wrong question. The procedure was intended to provide a quick and summary disposal, but that procedure might not be appropriate in cases involving insolvency of one party and or cross claims. Any creditor who owes a debt to an insolvent company, no matter how long overdue, may set off that debt in full against his own claim in the liquidation.
	Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 108

Manchester and District Housing Association -v- Fearnley Construction Ltd (In Voluntary Liquidation) and Another
17 Aug 2000 ChD	Construction, Land
	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.

Mark Wilkinson Furniture Ltd -v- Construction Industry Training Board
10 Oct 2000 QBD	Land, Construction, Employment	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	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.
	Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1999 159

Jones -v- Tower Hamlets London Borough Council and Another
26 Oct 2000 ChD	Intellectual Property, Construction
	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.
	Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988

Baxall Securities Ltd Norbain SDC Ltd -v- Sheard Walshaw Partnership [2001] BLR 36; [2000] EWHC Technology 53
30 Oct 2000 TCC Bowsher QC J	Professional Negligence, Construction	Casemap 1 Citers
	Link[s] omitted

The Royal Brompton Hospital NHS Trust -v- Hammond & Others 1993-ORB-No 46; [2000] EWHC Technology 39
18 Dec 2000 TCC	Construction	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Link[s] omitted