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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 1,980

Top 5 construction cases 2012
  • Norton Rose Fulbright Australia
  • Australia
  • December 20 2012

There were many noteworthy cases handed down in 2012, however we focused on those which have the most interest and practical relevance to our clients


Construction of contracts: priority of documents
  • Norton Rose Fulbright LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • February 22 2010

In the following case, the court had to consider the construction of a contract, and in particular the effect of a clause concerning the priority of documents, in order to determine which of two conflicting provisions relating to the payment mechanism was to prevail


Frustration, breach of contract and repudiation
  • Norton Rose Fulbright LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • May 25 2010

In the following case, which was bought before the courts by way of a summary application for judgement, the court had to consider whether the contract between the parties was frustrated so that performance become impossible or whether in fact one or other of the parties had wrongfully repudiated the contract


Liquidated damages provisions
  • Norton Rose Fulbright LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • April 24 2007

In Temloc Ltd v Errill Properties Ltd (1987) 39 BLR 30, the parties had inserted a rate of “£nil” in the Appendix of the contract, in relation to clause 24 (the provision for liquidated damages in the JCT form of contract


JCT contract: the effect of a settlement agreement on the final account provisions
  • Norton Rose Fulbright LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • January 27 2010

The two main issues before the court were whether the settlement agreement which the parties entered into post practical completion in relation to the final account was intended to replace the contractual final account procedure in clause 30 of the JCT standard form of contract and if so, whether the settlement agreement between the parties amounted to a full and final settlement of all claims and cross-claims arising between the parties


Supreme Court suggests special power needed to sign arbitration clauses
  • Norton Rose Fulbright LLP
  • Russia
  • April 14 2016

A recent decision from the commercial bench of the Supreme Court has reopened the question of whether an agent must be specifically authorised to


Federal Court finds that generic manufacturer is estopped from re-litigating patent validity in regard to a related product
  • Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
  • Canada
  • October 27 2009

On October 19, 2009 Justice Martineau of the Federal Court held that Apotex's notice of allegation ("NOA") in respect of Canadian Patent No. 2,041,113 (the "Patent") and the drug ZYPREXA was null, void and of no effect, as Apotex had previously made allegations of invalidity in respect of each claim of the Patent


Architects’ duties to inspect the works
  • Norton Rose Fulbright LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • April 24 2007

In the following case, the judge observed that the architect’s inspection role has been the subject of surprisingly few cases


Extension of time provisions and ‘time at large’
  • Norton Rose Fulbright LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • March 29 2007

In the leading case of Peak Construction (Liverpool) Limited v McKinney Foundations 1970 1 BLR 111, the construction contract contained a mechanism for extending the completion date, but this mechanism failed to provide for an extension of time where the contractor was delayed in achieving the completion date due to the fault of the employer


Common law remedies and the Human Rights Act 1998
  • Norton Rose Fulbright LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • March 31 2009

In Hanifa Dobson et al v Thames Water Utilities Limited and The Water Services Regulation Authority 2007 EWHC 2021 (TCC), it was established, in principle, that a statutory undertaker may be liable to members of the public in nuisance (caused by negligence), despite the existence of a statutory scheme for enforcement of the statutory undertaker’s statutory obligations