THE NATIONWIDE ACADEMY FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION (UK) Ltd.  
   
   
Home   About us   About ADR   NADR Services   Publications
 
   
  Forms   Members   Forums   Links   NMA
 
     
       
   
• Adjudication
• Adjudication Federal Australia
• Adjudication Law Reports
• Adjudication Law Reports 1999
• Adjudication Law Reports 2000
• Adjudication Law Reports 2001
• Adjudication Law Reports 2002
• Adjudication Law Reports 2003
• Adjudication Law Reports 2004
• Adjudication Law Reports 2005
• Adjudication Law Reports 2006
• Adjudication Law Reports 2007
• Adjudication Law Reports 2008
• Adjudication Law Reports Index
• Adjudication New South Wales
• Adjudication New Zealand
• Adjudication Northern Territory
• Adjudication Queensland
• Adjudication Singapore
• Adjudication South Australia
• Adjudication Tasmania
• Adjudication Victoria
• Adjudication Western Australia
• ADR Law Reports
• ADR Law Reports 1997
• ADR Law Reports 1998
• ADR Law Reports 1999
• ADR Law Reports 2000
• ADR Law Reports 2001
• ADR Law Reports 2002
• ADR Law Reports 2003
• ADR Law Reports 2004
• ADR Law Reports 2005
• ADR Law Reports 2006
• ADR Law Reports 2007
• ADR Law Reports 2008
• ADR Law Reports Index
• Alernative Dispute Resolution
• Arbitration
• Arbitration Law Reports 1996
• Arbitration Law Reports 1997
• Arbitration Law Reports 1998
• Arbitration Law Reports 1999
• Arbitration Law Reports 2000
• Arbitration Law Reports 2001
• Arbitration Law Reports 2002
• Arbitration Law Reports 2003
• Arbitration Law Reports 2004
• Arbitration Law Reports 2005
• Arbitration Law Reports 2006
• Arbitration Law Reports 2007
• Arbitration Law Reports 2008
• Arbitration Law Reports Index
• Arbitration Older Reports
• Banking
• Commercial Law Reports 1997
• Commercial Law Reports 1998
• Commercial Law Reports 1999
• Commercial Law Reports 2000
• Commercial Law Reports 2001
• Commercial Law Reports 2002
• Commercial Law Reports 2003
• Commercial Law Reports 2004
• Commercial Law Reports 2005
• Commercial Law Reports 2006
• Commercial Law Reports 2007
• Commercial Law Reports 2008
• Commercial Law Reports Index
• Conflicts of Law
• Constitution Law Reports
• Constitutional Law
• Construction
• Construction Law Reports
• Construction Law Reports 2000
• Construction Law Reports 2001
• Construction Law Reports 2002
• Construction Law Reports 2003
• Construction Law Reports 2004
• Construction Law Reports 2005
• Construction Law Reports 2006
• Construction Law Reports 2007
• Construction Law Reports 2008
• Construction Law Reports Index
• Dispute Review Boards
• Education
• Employment
• Intellectual Property
• Legal Research
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Mediation
• Medical
• Private International Law
• Public International Law
• Public Law
• Shipping & Trade
• Sports Law
• Who's Who

Login
Username

Password



View a printer friendly version of this page.
 
Alstom Signalling Ltd v Jarvis Facilities Ltd (No1) [2004] ABC.L.R. 05/11
Application for a declaration that the contract contained a "pain and gain" provision : or alternatively that the price to be paid to the Defendants for the work done take into account a share by the Defendants of the "pain" suffered by the Claimants under a contract between the Claimants and Railtrack. Application refused and invitation to submit a fresh application based on findings of the court. 11th May 2004.
by His Honour Deputy Judge Colin Reese QC. Crown Copyright

APC v Amey Construction Ltd [2004] ABC.L.R. 07/23
Interpretation of contract terms : M6 Motorway refurbishment concession terms of sub-contract if any and remuneration terms. Outer House Court of Session.23rd July 2004
by Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. Crown Copyright

Bath and North East Somerset District Council v Mowlem Plc [2004] ABC.L.R. 02/20
LADs & Breach of Contract : Bath DC sought an injunctiont to prevent a breach of contract : Mowlem asserted right to continue breach on the basis that agreed LADs would provide Bath with adequate compensation. Court disagreed : LAD are not intended to validate a breach of contract. CA. 20th February 2004
by Brooke LJ; Mance LJ; Parke LJ. Crown Copyright

Birse Construction Ltd. v McCormick (U.K.) Ltd [2004] ABC.L.R. 12/09
Establishing cause of action in a claim for breach of contract and Statutory Limitation. TCC. 9th December 2004
by HHJ Peter Coulson. Crown Copyright

Earls Terrace Properties Ltd v Nilsson Design Ltd [2004] EWHC 136
Assessment of damages : Architect questioned applicable interest rate on award and set off a rise in property value, occurring because of delay taken into account. 22.02.2004
by His Honour Judge Thornton Q.C : Crown Copyright

General Mediterranean Holdings SA v Dinkha Latchin Associates [2004] ABC.L.R. 02/06
Oral design contract : Architect able to recover fees on a quantum meruit basis even though no written contract or instructions. CA. 6th February 2004
by Brooke LJ; Sedley LJ; Jacob LJ; Crown Copyright

John Doyle Construction Ltd v Laing Management (Scotland) Ltd [2004] ABC.L.R. 06/11
Global claims are viable but the claimant must disect each separate element and prove his case. Appeal Failed. Extra Division Inner House Court of Session. 11th June 2004.
by Lords MacLean; Johnston; Drummond Young. Crown Copyright

Medtia v Hamid [2004] ABC.L.R. 05/21
Scott Schedule ignored by judge and global award made. CA set aside the decision. 21st May 2004.
by Pill LJ; Sir William Aldous. Crown Copyright

Morgan Est (Scotland) Ltd v Hanson Concrete Products Ltd [2004] ABC.L.R. 07/22
Statement of claim : Amendment : Legal personality : Assigned contract. Morgan sued in their own name without pleading the assignment of the contract. Application for amendment of statement of claim. Application refused : amounted to pleading a new case. Attempt to plead assignments. TCC. 22nd July 2004.
by HHJ Richard Havery Q.C. : Crown Copyright

Purac Ltd v Byzak Ltd [2004] ABC.L.R. 11/12
Action for immediate release of retention monies. Release as between members of consortium following certification and payment made by client was confirmed by VA Tech Wabag UK Ltd v Morgan Est (Scotland) Ltd where there was a right to immediate distribution. Va Tech distinguished and error corrected. Summary enforcement was resisted on grounds of arguable issue of defects. HGCRA excluded by application of s105. Outer House Court of Session. 12th November 2004.
by Lord Drummond. Crown Copyright

Taylor Woodrow Holdings Ltd v Barnes & Elliott Ltd [2004] ABC.L.R. 12/20
Unsuccessful apeal against arbitrator\'s finding that in the circumstances a provision for LADs was inoperable. 20th December 2004.
by HHJ David Wilcox. 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.


 
     
       
Top of page
 
       
      THE NATIONWIDE ACADEMY FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION (UK) Ltd.
     

 
    Copyright © NADR 2000, all rights reserved.