|
|
|
|
| Construction contract – existence of – quantum meruit. This judgment concludes that there was no relevant contract entered into for the work in question, that the claimant\'s entitlement is for a quantum meruit, that that entitlement is enforceable and not tainted by illegality and that an appropriate markup on unpaid invoices should be 15%. Previous payments, based on a higher markup, should remain unaffected. TCC. 21st January 2001. |
| by HHJ Anthony Thornton : Crown Copyright |
|
|
|
| Guarantees : A guarantee must be in writing under s4 Statute of Frauds 1677 - so a sub-contractor cannot rely on an oral promise. CA. 10th October 2001. |
| by Simon Brown LJ, Peter Gibson LJ, Tuckey LJ. Crown Copyright |
|
|
|
| Arbitration Clause : Interpretation : ". . . any dispute or difference arising hereunder between the Assured and the Insurers shall be referred to a Queen's Counsel of the English Bar to be mutually agreed between the Insurers and the Assured or in the event of disagreement by the Chairman of the Bar Council" held to be an arbitration clause not a non-binding ADR / mediation / conciliation provision. CA. 18th January 2001 |
| by Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Longmore : |
|
|
|
| Surveyor’s duty : liability : quantum : Surveyor failed to report on the extent to which property was affected by air traffic. The issue was specifically part of his remit. The owner ultimately decided to retain the property. Economic loss was not therefore an issue. Merely how much should be awarded for loss of amenity and enjoyment of property. 11th October 2001 |
| by Lords Steyn; Browne-Wilkinson; Clyde; Hutton; Scott : Crown Copyright |
|
|
|
| Quantum Meruit : Tort; Held on appeal – damages for loss and expense overruled. CA. 19th January 2001. |
| by Peter Gibson LJ ; Arden LJ; Mr Justice Collins. Crown Copyright |
|
|
|
| Set aside. Interpretation of compromise agreement setting aside previous enforcement judgement incorporated into Tomlin Order. Application for rectification of terms of Tomlin Order refused. 6th March 2001. |
| by His Honour Judge David Wilcox. Crown Copyright |
|
|
|
| Claimant owner seeks damages against the contractor for fire damage to the existing structure, in respect of the damage caused to the Works by the fire, and in respect of business interruption plus an indemnity under clause 6.1.2 of the Contract in respect of the consequences of the fire. Preliminary declaration of liability. TCC. 29th March 2001. |
| by His Honour Judge Richard Seymour Q.C. Crown Copyright |
 |
Our publications are provided in PDF format, in order to view them you will need Adobe's free Acrobat reader. Acrobat reader can be downloaded from Adobe by following the link to your left. |
|
|
