Landlord and tenant Repair. The claimant landlord brought a dilapidations claim against the tenant in which it alleged breach of a repair covenant of a lease in respect of its property and sought to recover the cost of repairs to the property. The Technology and Construction Court held that, on the facts, the claimant was entitled to recover most of the sums in issue.
Building contract Arbitration. The Technology and Construction Court, in proceedings brought pursuant to a building contract, made a declaration that the adjudicator had made a 'temporary binding' decision as to the date of practical completion and refused to stay enforcement of the judgment sum pending the decisions in two subsequent adjudications. Consequently, summary judgment was entered for the claimant.
Arbitration Award. The proceedings concerned a dispute in respect of the construction of a medical centre. Following an arbitration in which the arbitrator found for the defendants, the claimant company applied for leave to appeal the decision of the arbitrator on two issues. In dismissing the application, the Technology and Construction Court held that the claimant's first question in the appeal did not raise an issue of general public importance, and that the arbitrator's decision in respect of the second issue had not obviously been wrong.
European Union Environment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art3(4) and (5) of Council Directive (EC) 2001-42 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 (on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment). The request had been made in the course of proceedings between L and M, a municipality, concerning the legal validity of a building plan prepared by M without an environmental assessment, as required by that directive, having been carried out.
Contract Construction of contract. The claimant travel company purchased a ski holiday company and its subsidiary from the defendants. The claimant sought reimbursement from the defendants for payment of Swiss valued added tax and associated expenses under the terms of the deed in respect of the sale. The Queen's Bench Division, Mercantile Court, held that on the true construction of the deed and approaching the matter with commercial common sense, the tax in issue was payable under Swiss law and the defendants had no grounds under of the deed not to pay what had otherwise been due.
Town and Country Planning Planning permission. The defendant local authority granted the interested party planning permission for a development. The claimant applied for judicial review of the grant of planning permission on the basis that the proposed development would have been within an exclusion zone set out by an earlier enforcement decision. The Administrative Court dismissed the application as the development was at no point within the exclusion zone.
Arbitration Stay of court proceedings. The claimant company had been assigned the benefit of a partnership deed. It commenced proceedings against the defendants in respect of mismanagement of the partnership. The defendants sought a stay of the proceedings, seeking to rely on an arbitration clause in the partnership deed pursuant to the . The application was dismissed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the defendants' appeal, holding that they could not rely upon s8(1) of the 1999 Act to compel arbitration of the entirety of the dispute.
Contract Construction. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the defendant lessee under an aircraft leasing agreement had been liable for the lease notwithstanding a defect in the aircraft which rendered it un-airworthy, because the defendant had signed a certificate of acceptance. The natural meaning of the documents was that the aircraft had been examined and investigated, that it had been found in the condition required for delivery, and that it had, accordingly, been accepted by the defendant on, or for, lease.
Costs Costs management order. The issue in the instant case was whether a costs budget, which had been approved by the court as part of a costs management order, could subsequently be revised or rectified. The claimant sought essentially to revise an approved budget in relation to proceedings in the Technology and Construction Court, or for it to be rectified or clarified that the approved budget excluded the success fee and 'after the event' insurance premiums, which had been mistakenly omitted from the costs budget prepared for a case management conference. The court held that the difficulty in which the claimants found themselves arose out of the costs management pilot scheme and the particular court form (with tick boxes) that had been used as part of that pilot. In those circumstances, it was not appropriate to penalise the claimants. The claimants were allowed to revise-rectify the approved costs management order.
Building contract Architect. The Technology and Construction Court considered issues of liability and quantum in respect of a claim for negligence against the defendant architects resulting from defective work carried out by a building contractor.