Construction Projects in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Chandler v Camden London Borough Council
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 09 October 2009

    The failure to comply with the regulations is an unlawful act, whether or not there is no economic operator who wishes to bring proceedings under reg 47, and thus a paradigm situation in which a public body should be subject to review by the court.

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

  • Gilbert Ash (Northern) Ltd v Modern Engineering (Bristol) Ltd
    • House of Lords
    • 25 July 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.

  • Triple Point Technology, Inc. v PTT Public Company Ltd
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 05 March 2019

    If a construction contract is abandoned or terminated, the employer is in new territory for which the liquidated damages clause may not have made provision. It may be more logical and more consonant with the parties' bargain to assess the employer's total losses flowing from the abandonment or termination, applying the ordinary rules for assessing damages for breach of contract.

  • By Development Ltd and Others v Covent Garden Market Authority
    • Queen's Bench Division (Technology and Construction Court)
    • 28 September 2012

    Accordingly, in deciding such claims, the court's function is a limited one. It is reviewing the decision solely to see whether or not there was a manifest error and/or whether the process was in some way unfair. The court is not undertaking a comprehensive review of the tender evaluation process; neither is it substituting its own view as to the merits or otherwise of the rival bids for that already reached by the public body.

  • Lettings International Ltd v London Borough of Newham
    • Queen's Bench Division
    • 07 July 2008

    Third, I agree with Mr. Anderson that it is not my task merely to embark on a re-marking exercise and to substitute my own view but to ascertain if there is a manifest error, which is not established merely because on mature reflection a different mark might have been awarded. Fourth the issue for me is to determine if the combination of manifest errors made by Newham in marking the tenders would have led to a different result.

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

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT