ADJUDICATION
Alleged bias in nomination
Makers UK Ltd v Camden London Borough Council [2008]
BLR 470 TCC
Already reported in CILL, Camden sought to challenge the
adjudicator's decision on the ground that he had been
improperly appointed by RIBA. Makers had contacted RIBA to request
the appointment of the adjudicator actually appointed. The court
rejected the existence of an implied term that neither party should
seek to influence the appointment, since the nominating body was
under no obligation to accede to the representations. There was no
appearance of bias in appointing an adjudicator previously
requested by one of the parties.
Construction Contracts Bill
Construction Act Review by Peter Sheridan and Dominic
Helps Construction Law Journal 2008 Vol. 24 No. 7 p. 572
The regular column from Shadbolt & Co. provides an
overview of the proposals contained in the draft legislation the
purpose of which is to reform the HGCR Act. The principal reforms
covered in the commentary are the repeat of the s.107 requirement
that the Construction Contract must be in writing to be covered,
provision in contracts for adjudication costs, the
adjudicator's fees and expenses, pay when certified provisions,
stage payments and payment notices and withholding notices.
Extension of time for service of response
CJP Builders Ltd v William Verry Ltd [2008]
TCLR 10 TCC
Already reported in CILL, contractors Verry engaged
subcontractors CJP under a DOM/2 sub-contract. CJP referred a
withholding notice dispute to adjudication. Verry requested an
extension of time beyond the seven days in the DOM Conditions and
was over five hours beyond the extended deadline in serving its
response. The adjudicator held that he could not consider the
response and found in favour of CJP. In an action for enforcement,
the court held that the adjudicator had the power to set the
timetable and that his failure to consider the response was a
breach of natural justice.
See VGC Construction v Jackson Civil Engineering under Keating Chambers Reported Cases on attempt to resist enforcement of adjudicator's decision on grounds that claim was nebulous and ill-defined or had been withdrawn.
Extension of time for service of response
CJP Builders Ltd v William Verry Ltd [2008] BLR
545 TCC
Already reported in CILL, contractors Verry engaged subcontractors
CJP on a DOM/2 sub-contract. CJP referred a withholding notice
dispute to adjudication. Verry requested an extension of time
beyond the seven days in the DOM conditions and was over five hours
beyond the extended deadline in serving its response. The
adjudicator held that he could not consider the response and found
in favour of CJP. In an action for enforcement, the court held that
the adjudicator had the power to set the timetable and that his
failure to consider the response was a breach of natural
justice.
ARBITRATION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION
See The Coal Authority v Davidson under Keating Chambers Reported Cases on challenge to arbitration award on compensation under Coal Mining Subsidence Act.
Arbitration clause unfair
Mylcrist Builders Ltd v Buck [2008] CILL 2624
TCC
The builder's standard terms of contract contained an
arbitration clause and they proposed to refer a payment dispute to
arbitration. The client, an individual owner-occupier, succeeded in
her argument (appearing in person) that the clause was unfair
pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations
1999. The builders failed in their argument that they had achieved
a valid appointment of an arbitrator under s.17 Arbitration Act
when the other party refused to appoint; this was held only to
apply to parties each appointing an arbitrator and not to a sole
arbitrator.
Construction Law Vol. 19 Issue 9 November 2008 contains the following articles:
Arbitration (Scotland) Bill – myth or
reality?
by Lindy Patterson, Dundas & Wilson
Judges as mediators
by John Sheils, Shadbolt & Co
Arbitration Law Monthly Vol. 8 No. 10 November 2008 contains the following articles:
Seat of the arbitration
on Braes of Doune Wind Farm (Scotland) v
Alfred McAlpine Business Services (identification of
seat).
Separability
on Entico Corporation v UNESCO (on
existence of arbitration agreement)
Supporting foreign arbitrations
on Mobil Cerro Negro v Petroleos de
Venezuela
(interim relief in favour of foreign proceedings)
Appeal on point of law
on Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance v BAE
Systems
(s.69 challenge)
Journal of International Arbitration Vol. 25 No. 5 2008 contains the following articles:
Party autonomy in international commercial arbitration:
popular fallacy or proven fact?
by Mia Louise Livingstone, Baker & McKenzie,
Melbourne
Party autonomy in Mainland Chinese international
arbitration
by Graeme Johnston, Herbert Smith, Shanghai
State responsibility and investment arbitration
by Kaj Hobér, Mannheimer Swartling, Stockholm
Arbitration in equity and amiable composition under
Portuguese law
by Antonio Sampaio Caramelo, Morais Leitao
Section 37h of the German Securities Trading Act and its
non-compliance with European law
by Roman Jordans, CMS Hasche Sigle, Cologne
The need for speed in international arbitration
by Klaus Peter Berger, University of Cologne
Finality over choice
by Timothy Tyler and Archis Parasharami, Mayer Brown
A Pro Domo pleading of in-house Counsel and their
necessary participation in international commercial
arbitration
by Jean-Claude Najar
Recent arbitration-related developments in the UAE
by Roza Mohtashami
International Arbitration Law Review 2008 Vol.11 Issue 5 contains the following articles:
50th Anniversary of the New York Convention:
any progress in recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral
awards in Ukraine?
by Tetiana Bersheda Vucurovic, Levy Kaufmann-Kholer,
Geneva
Complex dispute resolution clauses: has the desire to
control the dispute process led to increased uncertainty?
by Catherine Bellsham-Revell, Olswang, London
Confidentiality and public access in arbitration
– the Norwegian approach
by Ola Nisja, Attorney-General: Office, Oslo
Disclosure and confidentiality
Emmott v Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd
[2008] BLR 515 CA
This is not a construction case; it concerns a dispute between a
British Virgin Islands law firm and a former employee accused of
poaching its business, which was legal advice in Kazakhstan. The
importance of the case is the extensive discussion by the court of
the principles of confidentiality and privacy in arbitration,
arising when the firm undertook litigation in BVI and other
jurisdictions as well as London arbitration. The issue was whether
documents in the arbitration proceedings should have been made
available to the foreign courts, (and whether the appeal was
academic given that they already had been). The CA considered the
implied obligation of privacy in arbitration and the exception
based on public interest, which was applicable here, since
otherwise the foreign courts might be misled.
CONTRACT AND PROCUREMENT LAW
Challenges to framework agreement and contract awards
Construction Industry Law Letter October 2008
2630-2632
CILL featured short notes of three procurement cases
recently decided by the Northern Ireland High Court.
Henry Brothers (Magherafelt) Ltd v Dept for Education for Northern Ireland
McLaughlin & Harvey Ltd v Dept of Finance and Personnel
McConnell Archive Storage Ltd v Belfast City Council
McLaughlin & Harvey and Henry Bros concerned applications for injunctions to prevent the award of contracts to the tenderer chosen by the awarding authority. In McLaughlin & Harvey the contractor had tendered unsuccessfully for a place in a framework agreement and alleged that the government had utilised a methodology for marking the tenders which had not been disclosed in advance.
In the Henry Brothers case, the contractor had failed to secure a place in a framework agreement for schools modernisation and alleged that the government had wrongly used the tenderers fee percentages as the sole commercial criterion for award. In the two reported decisions, both contractors failed to obtain interlocutory injunctions. In McLaughlin & Harvey, this was because damages would be an adequate remedy and in Henry Bros because, on the balance of convenience, the delay and increased cost to the schools' modernisation was contrary to the public interest. Public policy was also the determining factor in the McConnell Archive Storage case, where a contractor unsuccessfully argued that the Council could not change its decision on discovering errors in its evaluation without application to the High Court under the Public Contracts Regulations 2006.
Note that, since these reported decisions were made, Henry Bros succeed in the trial of its action against the Department of Education. Coghlin J held that "The original decision to rely on the percentage fees and bands was based upon an incorrect factual assumption sufficient to amount to a manifest error." The award had thus been made unlawfully and the contractors' challenge was successful.
Construction Law Volume 19 Issue 8 October 2008
contains the following articles:
Changes can make for ambiguity
by Michael Phipps, Thurston Consultants (on JCT insurance
provisions)
Fair payment advice ignored
by Tom Pemberton, Shadbolt & Co (on OGC Guidance)
Don't set off down the wrong path
by Owen Williams and Hannah Bleakley, Lewis Silkin (on set
off and drafting LD clauses)
Directors' and officers' insurance
by John Wright, JD Risk Associates
Construction Law Volume 19 Issue 9 November 2008
contains the following articles:
Standard contracts can't cover everything
by Michael Phipps, Thurston Consultants (on insurance
under JCT 2005)
Savings with third party rights
by Dean Larder and Stacey Collins, Pinsent Masons
(on collateral warranties and third party rights)
Watch out for contractor insolvency
by Emelita Robbins, Herbert Smith
Risk management for professionals
by John D. Wright, JD Risk Associates
Ensuring fair policy
by Paul Newman, 3 Paper Buildings on EC procurement
rules
Waiting not over for Contracts Bill
by Dominic Helps, Shadbolt & Co
CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING CONTRACT DISPUTES LAW
Prescription and Limitation in Scotland
ANM Group Ltd v Gilcomston North Ltd [2008] BLR
481 Court of Session Outer House
This is a case under the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act
1973 with wider relevance whenever limitation statutes provide for
'reasonable knowledge' of a cause of action. Premature
cracking was occurring to fibre cement roof sheeting on the
pursuers' building, which some of the defenders had secretly
inspected without notifying the pursuers until later. The court
accepted that the pursuers were not aware and could not with
reasonable diligence have been aware of the damage. There is also
discussion of the 'temporary disconformity" theory as to
when breach of contract can be said to have occurred, although some
of the claims were in delict.
Delay Analysis
Analysing concurrent delays
by Richard Anderson, Arbitration Chambers and The critical path,
delay analysis and "Windows"
by Roger Gibson
Construction Law Journal 2008 Vol. 24 No. 7 is a special issue on
delay analysis. The Anderson article considers the different
approaches to concurrent delay: the traditional
"first-in-line" approach, the dominant cause approach and
the new "apportionment" approach favoured by the Scottish
Court of Session in City Inn v Shepherd.
The City Inn case is the subject of an
extensive report (pp 590-667) and commentary by Keith Pickavance of
Hill International.
The Gibson article is an extended case commentary on the latest instalment of Mirant Asia v Ove Arup [2007] EWHC 918 in the TCC, in which HH Judge Toulmin made some remarks in which he favoured "Windows" analysis, i.e. reviewing the course of a project month by month, over "watershed analysis", which he described as "a less reliable form of critical path analysis".
Construction Law Volume 19 Issue 8 October 2008
contains the following articles:
Where shall I start? by Paul Newman, 3 Paper buildings (on transfer of construction disputes from County Court to TCC)
Dispute resolution terminology
by Jane Hughes, Collyer Bristow
Pipe down, the Master of the Rolls is talking!
by John Sheils, Shadbolt & Co (on compulsory
mediation)
Overpayment for defective works
by Andrew Jones, Gately Wareing
Restitution claim by NSC fails
Yew Sang Hong Ltd v Hong Kong Housing Authority
[2008] BLR 563 HK CA
Nominated sub contractors Yew Sang were unpaid by the main
contractors when the latter went into insolvency. There was
certified work unpaid and retentions not released. Yew Sang brought
an action directly against the client, the Hong Kong Housing
Authority, on several grounds and appealed to the Court of Appeal
on the principle of unjust enrichment, since the client had had the
benefit of Yew Sang's work. The HKCA dismissed Yew Sang's
appeal, stating that, although the client had been enriched, it was
not unjust enrichment. What had happened resulted from the
contractual system agreed by the parties, including the allocation
of risk. The courts should be slow to interfere with allocation and
restitution should not be allowed to subvert a contractual or
statutory regime.
GENERAL AND PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE
Real danger needed for nuisance
Birmingham Development Co Ltd v Tyler [2008]
BLR 445 CA
The Court of Appeal held that it was insufficient for an
action in nuisance that the claimant was fearful of the
consequences of the defendant's actions. It was necessary that
the fear should be well-founded, meaning that the activities were
actually dangerous. During the claimant's demolition work for
development, it uncovered boundary walls owned by the defendant
which the claimant alleged were dangerous and constituted a
nuisance. The claimant's appeal was dismissed.
SAAMCO revisited by the Lords
Transfield Shipping Inc. v Mercator Shipping
Inc. [2008] BLM Vol. 25 No. 9 HL
Following delays, a ship which was subject to a charter
was not available to the new charterers. The owners of the ship
claimed damages from the charterers for the loss of the difference
between original rate of hire and reduced rate agreed for late
delivery. The charterers denied that damages should relate to
dealings with the new charterers but argued that they should be the
difference between market rate and charter rate. During 2004,
market rates had more than doubled. The majority arbitrators found
for the owners, on an application of the first limb of
Hadley v Baxendale. The Commercial Court
and CA upheld this. Lord Hoffmann and the House of Lords, however,
allowed the appeal by the charterers: "if, therefore, one
considers what these parties, contracting against the background of
market expectations found by the arbitrators, would reasonably have
considered the extent of the liability they were undertaking, I
think it is clear that they would have considered losses arising
from the loss of the following fixture a type or kind of loss for
which the charterer was not assuming responsibility".
As well as Hadley v Baxendale, Lord Hoffmann and Baroness Hale considered South Australia Asset Management v York Montague on the role of foreseeability of loss exacerbated by market movement in measure of damages.
Personal injury in nuisance
Claimants appearing on the Register of the Corby
Group Litigation v Corby Borough Council [2008] BLM Vol. 25
No. 9 CA
Already reported in BLR, the claimants, born with physical
deformities, brought a group action pleaded in negligence and
public nuisance against the Council, which had acquired and used
680 acres of heavily contaminated land from British Steel. The
allegation was that exposure to toxic materials during the
reclamation and decontamination programme had affected the
pregnancies of the claimants' mothers. The Council applied to
strike out the nuisance claim on the ground that it could only
affect rights over land, but the Master and then the Court of
Appeal dismissed the application, on the grounds that it was at
least arguable that a personal injury claim could be brought in
public nuisance.
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
District Registry transfer to TCC rejected
Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council v Currie
& Brown Project Management Ltd [2008] BLR 464 TCC
The solicitors for the defendant project managers on a PFI
waste to energy project sought the transfer of a professional
negligence action from the TCC at Bristol to London for hearing by
a HCJ. Ramsey J, sitting in the Bristol District Registry TCC,
dismissed the application to transfer to London because the Bristol
court was the most appropriate court on the balance of convenience
and fairness between the parties. The case would, however, be tried
before a HCJ. Judgment was given for the claimants, the Council on
this application. There is discussion of CPR Part 30 and the TCC
Guide.
Pre-action disclosure
SES Contracting Ltd v UK Coal Plc [2008] Con LJ
Vol. 24 No.6 p.518
The successful tenderers for a coal industry project had
sought to obtain the services of staff of SES, an unsuccessful
tenderer. SES sought to obtain disclosure of information by UK
Coal, who had awarded the contract. In the result, the court held
that CPR 31.16 had been satisfied and that the applicants had no
legitimate grounds for complaint, but that the respondents should
pay the costs of the application, because the applicants had solid
grounds for believing that the tender process had been conducted
irregularly and that there had been breach of fiduciary duty by
former SES staff.
Court-appointed assessors
Balcombe Group plc v London Development Agency
[2008] TCLR 8 TCC
The claimant had been appointed as consultants on the
acquisition of land for the Olympics 2012 project in Stratford and
claimed fees of £600,000. The LDA, the client, contended for
the appointment of an assessor under CPR 35.15 arguing that the
court would be assisted by having the assistance of a person well
versed in the Compensation Code relevant to Compulsory Purchase and
Compensation.
Coulson J dismissed the LDA's application: holding that the sum of £600,000 was relatively modest for the TCC and that the judge was capable of assessing recoverability under the Code. A previous failed mediation suggested that a further third party would not make any significant difference in achieving a settlement.
Party Wall Dispute costs
Onigbanjo v Pearson [2008] BLR 507 Mayor and
City of London Court
The respondents had initially consented to works specified
in the appellant's party wall notice, but sought to appoint a
party wall surveyor when the works damaged their property. The
appellant refused to participate in the process and challenged the
jurisdiction of the party wall surveyor, particularly on costs. The
court, dismissing the appeal, confirmed that the dispute process
under the Party Wall etc Act 1996 is available also to parties who
have initially consented to the works if a dispute then arises. The
surveyor's jurisdiction extended to the award of
solicitors' and counsel's costs as well as those of the
respondent's surveyor.
Late payments as repudiatory breach
Alan Auld Associates Ltd v Rick Pollard
Associates [2008] BLM Vol. 25 No. 9 CA
Already reported in BLR, under a contract for professional
services, the defendant agreed to provide advisory work on removal
of radioactive waste on behalf of the claimant, to the UK Atomic
Energy Authority. The claimant frequently delayed payment to the
defendant. The issue for the court was whether this repeated late
payment constituted repudiatory breach by the claimant, entitling
the defendant to terminate the contract. The judge found that time
was of the essence in the payment obligation and that the defendant
had been justified in terminating the contract. The claimant's
appeal was dismissed by the CA, whose members noted that the
claimant's late payments had been persistent and cynical and
that the defendant, while not an employee, was dependent on the
payments as its only source of income in an analogous way and had
made repeated complaints.
Proprietary estopel and quantum meruit
Yeoman's Row Management Ltd v Cobbe [2008]
BLM Vol. 25 No. 9 HL
Appellant landowners agreed orally with respondent
developers for development of appellant's site. Respondent was
to obtain planning permission and acquire site for agreed price,
receiving 50% of any profit above a maximum figure. After the
respondent had obtained planning permission, the appellant sought
to increase the price for the site, and to reduce the
respondent's profit share to 40% of the profit above a much
higher maximum figure. The respondent's claim that the
appellant was estopped from changing its position failed. Neither
was there an enforceable contract, because it lacked the necessary
formalities under the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions)
Act 1989. However, on the facts, the developer was entitled to a
quantum meruit, because it had provided services beneficial to the
appellant and there had been no intention that they should be
free.
The Commercial Litigation Journal September/October 2008 No.21 contains the following articles:
Res judicata: play it again by Richard Power, Berwin Leighton Paisner
Arbitration: crossing the border by David Howell and Sarah Thomas, Fulbright & Jaworski
Summary judgment: speed, justice and complexity
by Tom Ellis and Sian Forbes, Bevan Brittan
Cross-border disclosure: the confusion of
tongues
by Rob Jones, Kroll Ontrack
Corporate manslaughter: bad company
by Victor Rae-Reeves, Clyde & Co
Funding claims: behind the scenes access
by Bob Gordon, 1st Class Legal
Training: the value of learning
by Fiona Cunningham, Nottingham Law School
Admissibility of extrinsic evidence
Bradford v James [2008] BLR 538 CA
Although the CA reaffirmed the principle that extrinsic
evidence will not normally be admitted to interpret a conveyance of
land, the appellant purchasers succeeded in their appeal against
the first instance judge's interpretation of the conveyance.
Extrinsic evidence must always be handled cautiously in construing
earlier documents.
KEATING CHAMBERS REPORTED CASES
The Coal Authority v Davidson [2008] CILL 2621
TCC
An arbitrator had awarded compensation under the Coal
Mining Subsidence Act to provide compensation to homeowners who
suffered subsidence to their properties due to coal mining. The
Coal Authority succeeded in challenging the award on the ground
that the arbitrator had erred in law in awarding compensation when
no new physical damage had occurred following remedial works. The
judge was satisfied that the arbitrator's decision was
'obviously wrong' in law under s.69 Arbitration Act and so
both granted leave to challenge the award and varied the award to
dismiss the compensation claims.
Paul Darling QC
VGC Construction Ltd v Jackson Civil Engineering
Ltd [2008] CILL 2627 TCC
The respondent main contractors, Jackson, sought to resist
enforcement of an adjudication decision in favour of the applicant
sub-contractor VGC. The court, granting VGC's application,
rejected Jackson's arguments that there had been a binding
agreement to withdraw the claim or that it had been so nebulous and
ill-defined as to be incapable of giving rise to a dispute.
Sarah Hannaford QC Alexander Nissen QC Samuel
Townend
Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v Cleveland Bridge
UK Ltd [2008] EWHC 2280 (LAWTEL) TCC
This costs hearing in the long running Wembley Stadium
litigation received widespread media coverage. The claimant
contractor, Multiplex, had obtained a net £6.1 million after
judgments on many issues. The court rejected Multiplex's
suggestion that Cleveland Bridge should pay all the costs, but held
that Multiplex should be treated as the successful party entitled
to a costs order, because Cleveland Bridge had not accepted that it
owed anything. However, Multiplex had failed comprehensively on
some points and a proportionate costs order was perfectly
practicable and appropriate. The judgment sets out the breakdown
and reasoning on all issues, but overall Cleveland Bridge had to
pay 20% of the costs of the action, increased from 10% because of
their failure to make an offer.
The articles and papers published by Keating Chambers are for the purpose of raising general awareness of issues and stimulating discussion. The contents must not be relied upon or applied in any given situation. There is no substitute for taking appropriate professional advice.
For further information on how our members can assist you, please contact the Senior Clerks, John Munton and Nick Child, in the first instance, on +44 (0) 20 7544 2600. They and their teams of Clerks will be pleased to advise you on the member of Keating Chambers appropriate to your requirements.
© KEATING CHAMBERS