Adjudication Injunction. A party to an adjudication was entitled to withdraw unilaterally a dispute referred to adjudication and commence a further adjudication in respect of the same, or substantially the same, dispute. In such circumstances, the court had power to grant an injunction to restrain pursuit of the further adjudication if the further adjudication was unreasonable and oppressive. So held the Technology and Construction Court in dismissing the claimant's application for an injunction to restrain the defendant from proceeding with a second adjudication, following the defendant's withdrawal from an earlier adjudication in respect of a construction dispute between the parties. The court held that, on the facts of the case, the second adjudication did not amount to unreasonable and oppressive behaviour, justifying the exercise of the court's discretion in granting injunctive relief.
Arbitration Adjudication. The claimant company was given permission to continue with the enforcement of an adjudicator's decision, in a dispute concerning a football pitch. The Technology and Construction Court held that the defendant had attempted to avoid the debt that it owed the claimant. While the circumstances, while regrettable, were not unusual, the connivance of the defendant's solicitors was unusual.
*Gard Marine and Energy Ltd v China National Chartering Co Ltd and another; China National Chartering Co Ltd v Gard Marine and Energy Ltd and another; Daiichi Chuo Kisen Kaisha v Gard Marine and Energy Ltd and another
Shipping Charterparty. The appeal concerned the action by the claimant hull insurers against the charterers of a vessel for recovery of the value of the vessel which had been wrecked in a port during a severe storm. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the charterer's appeal against the judge's decision that the casualty had been caused by the unsafety of the port in breach of a warranty in the demise charterparty. The Court of Appeal held that in the light of relevant caselaw, the casualty had been caused by an 'abnormal occurrence' with the result that no breach of the safe port warranty had occurred.The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal's decision and dismissed the claimant's appeal.
European Union Rules on competition. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the appeal by Samsung SDI Co. Ltd and Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Bhd against a decision of the General Court of the European Union, by which the General Court had dismissed their action for the annulment in part of European Commission C(2012) 8839 final in which the Commission had found those companies that those companies had infringed art 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and art 53 of the Agreement of the European Economic Area in respect of the market for colour cathode ray tubes for computer monitors and television sets.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.