*Transocean Drilling UK Ltd v Providence Resources plc (The Arctic III)

Contract Damages for breach. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the claimant's appeal against the judge's decision that the defendant was entitled to recover spread costs for a period of delay caused by the claimant's breach of contract. The language of the exclusion clause in the contract in LOGIC form was clear and was apt to exclude liability for wasted costs in the form of the spread costs which the defendant sought to recover.

J Browne Construction Company Ltd v Chapman Construction Services Ltd and others

Contract Condition. The Queen's Bench Division, in a case in which the claimant was claiming damages for fraud, conspiracy, breach of contract held that there was insufficient evidence to support a case of deliberate fraud, conspiracy or deceit. However there had been a breach of contract for which damages were payable in the amount of any overcharging in the invoices.

Brennan v Prior and others

Costs Order for costs. The Chancery Division, allowed the third to sixth defendants' application under CPR40.12 seeking clarification or amendment of an order for costs made following the trial of a probate action concerning a will. The amount of the claimant's personal liability for the costs of the third to sixth defendants under the order was not limited by reference to the amount of her pecuniary legacy. The court exercised its inherent power under CPR 40BPD 4.5 that the order be amended to add words to the order to ensure any ambiguity in the order was removed.

Kitt and another v The Laundry Building Ltd

Building contract Adjudication. The claimant acted as an adjudicator in a dispute. He found largely against the defendant company. The defendant refused to pay his fee and he brought proceedings against it. The Technology and Construction Court held that the claimant had acted within jurisdiction and in accordance with the rules of natural justice, and was entitled to the sum claimed.

Lovell Partnerships Ltd and another v Merton Priory Homes

Contract Services. The Technology and Construction Court considered the interpretation of a contract between the parties, under which the claimant companies provided services to the defendant. The issue arose as to whether the claimants would be entitled to further remuneration if they went into liquidation. The court held that the claimants would be entitled to a declaration that the contract referred to any further payment to which it would or might otherwise be entitled pursuant to the contractual provisions relating to payment.

Westshield Civil Engineering Ltd and another company v Buckingham Group Contracting Ltd

Adjudication Award. The defendant company (Buckingham) was the main contractor engaged to construct a new studio for the well-known television 'soap', Coronation Street in Salford. The second claimant provided Buckingham with a quote for the supply and installation of drainage works for this project. The first claimant was identified as a sub-contractor for the project. A dispute arose as to the proper valuation of the final account between the parties and the matter was referred to adjudication. The adjudicator found in favour of the claimants. Without notice to the claimants, Birmingham instituted proceedings in the Technology and Construction Court. No particulars of claim had been served. The issue was whether the adjudicator's decision had become final in the circumstances. The court held that the adjudicator's decision had not become final and binding because Buckingham commenced proceedings essentially referring the dispute addressed by the adjudicator through court procedures for final resolution. There was no absolute requirement that particulars of claim had to be embodied within the claim form. CPR 7.4(1) gave a claimant the option of either incorporating them within the claim form or serving them with the claim form.

Co-operative Group Ltd v Birse Developments Ltd

Particulars of claim Amendment. In the course of proceedings concerning allegedly defective premises, the claimant sought to introduce re-amended particulars of claim. The Technology and Construction court considered proposed amendments to the claim, and held that the permission to amend would be granted.

Sea-Cargo Skips AS v State Bank of India

Guarantee Refund guarantee. The claimant (the buyer) and a builder entered into a contract whereby the builder was to deliver and sell a vessel to the buyer. The defendant bank issued a refund guarantee to the buyer in connection with that contract. The buyer assigned to another bank its rights under the refund guarantee. The shipbuilding contract was subsequently terminated and the buyer demanded payment from bank under the refund guarantee. The Commercial Court held that the claim failed on the ground that the demand did not comply with the terms of the refund guarantee. The demand was not one which, on its true construction, triggered the bank's liability to pay.

Igloo Regenerations (General Partner) Ltd and other companies v Powell Williams Partnership

Negligence Surveyor. The claimants brought proceedings against the defendant firm of surveyors, alleging negligence in its carrying out of a survey on a building in historic premises which the claimant companies were interested in purchasing. The Technology and Construction Court held that no breach of duty, contractual or tortious, had been established, and hence the claim would be dismissed.

Igloo Regeneration (GP) Ltd and other companies v Powell Williams Partnership

Costs Order for costs. In earlier proceedings, the claimants' case alleging professional negligence against the defendant was dismissed. The Chancery Division held that, on the facts, it was an appropriate case in which to make an order for indemnity costs in favour of the defendant.