We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 37

Suspension and repudiation

  • Norton Rose LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • May 25 2010

In the following case, the court had to consider whether a contractor's wrongful suspension constituted a repudiation of the contract, and whether a contractor could be excused from its liability for defects if the contract administrator failed to require the contractor to remedy defects which should have been apparent on attendance at site

Adjudication and the scheme of construction contracts

  • Norton Rose LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • May 25 2010

In the following case the court had to consider the effect of so-called "Tolent clauses" and also whether a contractual interest rate constituted a substantial remedy within the meaning of the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 (Late Payment Act

Adjudication: dispute resolution provisions in GC Works1

  • Norton Rose LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • May 25 2010

In the following case, the court considered the meaning of the dispute resolution clause in the GC Works1 Form of Contract; and the use of Part 8 proceedings during an adjudication to seek a declaration that the adjudicator had no jurisdiction to hear the dispute

Pay-when-paid clauses

  • Norton Rose LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • April 27 2010

In our September 2009 updater we reported on the first instance case of William Hare v Shepherd Construction Limited and others which considered the effectiveness of a pay-when-paid clause

Adjudication and fraud

  • Norton Rose LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • April 27 2010

In the following case the Court of Appeal agreed with the first instance judgment of the effect of fraud on an adjudicator's decision

Letters of intent and contract formation

  • Norton Rose LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • April 27 2010

We reported on the perils of beginning work without agreeing the precise basis upon which it is to be done in both our June 2008 Updater report on RTS Flexible Systems Ltd v Molkerei Alois Muller GMbh & Co KG 2008 EWHC 1097 and our March 2009 Updater report on the Court of Appeal decision in the same case

Settlement

  • Norton Rose LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • March 25 2010

We reported on the case of Supershield Ltd v Siemens Building Technologies FE Ltd v Supershield Ltd 2009 EWHC 927 (TCC) in our July 2009 Updater

Extensions of time and conditions precedent

  • Norton Rose LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • March 25 2010

In the following case the Scottish Court of Session had to decide whether the contractor had validly fulfilled its obligations to give notice as required as a condition precedent to bringing its claim for an extension of time and loss and expense under the contract

Adjudication: mistake in adjudicator’s decision

  • Norton Rose LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • February 22 2010

As noted in our report on Rok Building Limited v Celtic Composting Systems Limited (No 2) 2010 EWHC 66 (TCC), the general position is that the court will enforce adjudicator's decisions even if the adjudicator has made an error, unless the adjudicator had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute or there has been a breach of natural justice

Adjudication: natural justice and the slip rule

  • Norton Rose LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • February 22 2010

The courts have made it clear on many occasions that provided the adjudicator is acting within his jurisdiction, the fact that he has answered the relevant factual or legal questions incorrectly, even if the error is mathematical, does not affect the enforceability of the decision