The article you're looking might have been renamed, removed or relocated.

William Naylor t/a Powerfloated Concrete Floors -v- Greenacres Curling Limited

The disputes in the two adjudications were substantially the same with the result that the adjudicator in the second adjudication should resign pursuant to paragraph 9(2) of the Scheme for Construction Contracts

Watson Building Services Limited (Judicial review)

The contractor's petition for the judicial review and reduction of the adjudicator's decision on the ground that the adjudication was without lawful warrant because the adjudicator's appointment was by an unauthorised nominating body should be refused

Watkin Jones & Son Ltd V Lidl UK GMBH (Part II)

The adjudicator had no jurisdiction for the referred dispute of the contractor's entitlement under its interim payment application where it was decided in a prior adjudication that it should be paid the full amount of that application in the absence of a notice under clause 30.3.3 or .4 of JCT 98

Stubbs Rich Architects-v- W H Tolley & Son Limited

The contractor's claim against the adjudicator (an architect) for the repayment of part of his fees (which the contractor paid in full subject to protest) on the ground that the number of hours he took was excessive failed

Skanska Construction UK Limited V The ERDC Group Limited & anr

The contractor should not be granted an interim order preventing the adjudicator in the second adjudication from proceeding with it and suspending it notwithstanding that the subject matter of the both adjudications begun by the sub-contractor was its claim against the contractor for direct loss and expense

Re A Company (number 1299 of 2001)

The sub-contractor could present a winding up petition despite a bona fide dispute as to the debt under its statutory demand by reason of the contractor failing to serve a notice of intention to withhold payment under section 111 of the Construction Act

RJT Consulting Engineers Ltd V DM Engineering (Northern Ireland) Ltd (Part II)

The true construction of the requirement in section 107 of the Construction Act 1996 that a construction contract must be in writing

RJT Consulting Engineers Limited V DM Engineering (Northern Ireland) Ltd (Part I)

The consultancy agreement was in writing for the purposes of section 107 of the Construction Act 1996

R G Carter Ltd V Edmund Nuttall Ltd (Part II)

The adjudicator was not biased on the basis of the sub-contractor's criticisms of his conduct and even if those criticisms had been well founded, the court did not have the jurisdiction to order his removal

Parsons Plastics (Research & Development) Ltd V Purac Ltd (Part II)

The sub-contractor should not have summary judgement to enforce the adjudicator's decision for the payment to it of a specified sum by the contractor where the contractor served a notice of its intention to withhold payment of that sum by reason of the sub-contractor's alleged defaults

Oakley and Anr. -v- Airclear Environmental Limited and Anr.

The statutory demands based on the adjudicator?s decision should not be enforced on the assumption that that decision was made without jurisdiction

Mitsui Babcock Energy Services Limited

The assembling on site of equipment and piping and their installation into two boilers on a site within a petrochemical complex were exempt operations under section 105(2)(c)(ii) of the Construction Act 1996

Karl Construction (Scotland) Ltd V Sweeney Civil Engineering (Scotland) Ltd (Appeal) (Part II)

The adjudicator was not required as a matter of natural justice to have invited submissions from the parties before she departed from their agreed position that the sub-contract?s payment provisions complied with the requirements of the Construction Act

Joseph Finney plc -v- Gordon Vickers and Gary Vickers t/a Mill Hotel (A Firm)

A compromise agreement was entered into whereby the employer agreed to pay the sum invoiced by the contractor by a specified date despite the fact that the employer had previously purported to serve a notice of withholding for a similar sum to that invoiced

Impresa Castelli Spa V Cola Holdings Limited

The disputes arising out of the employer's counterclaim against the contractor for alleged breaches of contract in respect of defective workmanship and materials and incomplete work could properly be the subject matter of arbitration or court proceedings

Holt Insulation Ltd -v- Colt International Ltd

Although the subject matter of the two adjudications concerned the same payment application, there were two separate disputes referred in the two adjudications with the result that the adjudicator had jurisdiction to make the decision he did in the second

Gillies Ramsay Diamond V PJW Enterprises Limited

The contract of engagement between the employer and the contract administrator surveyors, was a "construction contract" within the meaning of section 104(1)(b) of the Construction Act 1996

Gibson Lea Retail Interiors Ltd -v- Makro Self-Service Wholesalers Ltd

The contracts for the shoplifting works were not "construction contracts" within the meaning of the 1996 Act on the basis that none of the items supplied and installed were fixtures with the result that the works did not constitute "construction operations"

Fence Gate Ltd -v- James R Knowles Ltd

The adjudicator did not have jurisdiction under section 104(2) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 to decide the validity of the consultant?s invoices for work to do with the client's arbitration proceedings against the contractor

Farebrother Building Services Ltd -v- Frogmore Investments Ltd

The court should enforce the adjudicator's decision made under the TeCSA adjudication rules by way of summary judgment and should not deduct from the sum awarded by the adjudicator the amount of the defendant?s counterclaim by way of set-off

Faithful & Gould Limited -v- Arcal Limited and Ors.

The adjudicator?s employer?s application to enforce the adjudicator's decision for the defendants to pay his fees should not be struck out on the ground that the adjudication rules required an adjudicator to be a natural person acting in his personal capacity

Edmund Nuttall Ltd V R G Carter Ltd

The sub-contractor was not entitled to summary judgement to enforce the adjudicator's decision on the basis that the dispute decided in the adjudication as set out in the sub-contractor's payment application was not the dispute in the sub-contractor's notice of referral to adjudication

Cowlin Construction Limited V CFW Architects

A dispute arose from the contractor's claim that the architect was responsible for various delays to the project which could properly be referred to adjudication

City Inn Ltd V Shepherd Construction Ltd (Part I)

The adjudicator's decision that the contractor was entitled to an extension of time over and above the extension granted by the architect had no effect on the contractor's burden of proof to establish such an entitlement in the present court proceedings

Chamberlain Carpentry & Joinery Ltd V Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd

The dispute referred to adjudication by the sub-contractor constituted only one "dispute", ie how much it should be paid by the contractor, despite the notice of adjudication specifying a number of heads of claim

Bovis Lend Lease Limited V Triangle Development Limited

The decision should not be enforced where the contract provided that in the event of the contract's determination, the contractual provisions requiring further payment were not to apply

Barr Limited -v- Law Mining Limited

Matters referred constituted one ?dispute? for the purposes of paragraph 8(2) of the Scheme for Construction Contracts on the basis that those matters formed a single dispute as to sums due under the contractor

Ballast plc V The Burrell Company (Construction Management) Limited - Part I

Adjudicator guilty of an error of law by having refused to decide the dispute referred to him on the grounds of the contract's lack of clarity and of the parties' failure to follow what the adjudicator termed "the strict contractual code"

Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd V The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Lambeth

The adjudicator acted in breach of the rules of natural justice by constructing the contractor’s case for it with regard to its claim for an extension of time without confronting the employer with that case

Austin Hall Building Ltd -v- Buckland Securities Ltd

Adjudication does not infringe the Human Rights Act 1998 or the European Convention on Human Rights and the rules of natural justice apply to adjudications