Construction Projects in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd and Others ; St Martins Property Corporation Ltd and Another v Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd (formerly Sir Robert McAlpine and Sons Ltd)
    • House of Lords
    • 22 Jul 1993

    In such a case, it seems to me proper, as in the case of the carriage of goods by land, to treat the parties as having entered into the contract on the footing that Corporation would be entitled to enforce contractual rights for the benefit of those who suffered from defective performance but who, under the terms of the contract, could not acquire any right to hold McAlpine liable for breach.

  • Exel Europe Ltd v University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust
    • Queen's Bench Division (Technology and Construction Court)
    • 21 Dic 2010

    It is in Regulation 47H(2) that one finds what exercise the Court “must” do: it must consider whether, if regulation 47G(1) was not applicable, “it would be appropriate to make an interim order requiring the contracting authority to refrain from entering into the contract”; it then goes on to say that it is “only if the Court considers that it would not be appropriate to make such an interim order may it make an order under paragraph (1)(a)”.

  • Galliford Try Building Ltd v Estura Ltd
    • Queen's Bench Division (Technology and Construction Court)
    • 27 Feb 2015

    This means that the employer cannot bring a second adjudication to determine the value of the work at the valuation date of the interim application in question. There is nothing to prevent the employer challenging the value of the work on the next application, even if he is contending for a figure that is lower than the (unchallenged) amount stated in the previous application.

  • Lion Apparel Systems Ltd v Firebuy Ltd
    • Chancery Division
    • 27 Set 2007

    If the Authority has not complied with its obligations as to equality, transparency or objectivity, then there is no scope for the Authority to have a “margin of appreciation” as to the extent to which it will, or will not, comply with its obligations.

  • Gilbert Ash (Northern) Ltd v Modern Engineering (Bristol) Ltd
    • House of Lords
    • 25 Jul 1973

    But in construing such a contract one starts with the presumption that neither party intends to abandon any remedies for its breach arising by operation of law, and clear express words must be used in order to rebut this presumption.

  • Taylor v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and Regions
    • Court of Appeal
    • 31 Jul 2001

    The very reliance on ground (f) shows that this is the position. If there is a fallback position on which they wish to rely then they should make this clear to the Secretary of State in their submissions. It is not reasonable to come to court, as has happened here, and ask for the case to be remitted to the inspector so that she may ask for further submissions which could and should have been made in the first place if the landowner wished to advance them.

  • Alstom Transport v Eurostar International Ltd and Another
    • Chancery Division
    • 29 Oct 2010

See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results