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.

Aspen Insurance UK Ltd v Adana Construction Ltd

Building contract Insurance. The defendant construction company was employed, among other things, to create a base for a crane with poured concrete. The crane subsequently collapsed. The claimant ensurers sought a declaration of non liability. The claimant sought, among other things, a declaration that the concrete base was a 'product', and that therefore it was not liable to indemnify the defendant for any liability. The Chancery Division held that none of the terms was a product, individually or together, and that the application for a declaration would be refused.

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Freemont Ltd

Landlord and tenant Lease. The claimant was the freehold owner of railway land, including the road bridge (the premises). The defendant was the lessee of the premises. The proceedings concerned a platform which was adjacent to a bridge over a railway. It consisted of the main platform and an infill. An issue arose between the parties as to whether the premises demised under two leases excluded an infill and as to which party should bear the cost of substantial repairs to the infill. The Chancery Division held that on the true construction of the leases, the infill was not part of the premises demised by the leases. The repairs did not fall to be carried out by the defendant

Barden v Commodities Research Unit International (Holdings) Ltd and other companies

Employment Contract of service. The claimant was the former CEO of the defendant company. On his retirement, he was to be paid a sum under an agreement. An issue arose as to whether PAYE should be deducted from the payment to be made under the agreement. The Chancery Division held that the agreement, properly construed, meant that the sum should be paid to the claimant net of any PAYE due from him as a result of the payment.

Bate v Aviva Insurance UK Ltd

Insurance Claim. The Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court, dismissed the claimant's claim against the defendant insurers for an indemnity and damages arising from a fire. The court found that the defendant had established some of the misrepresentations, non-disclosures and breaches of condition on which it had relied.

Hills Contractors and Construction Ltd v Struth and another

Claim form Service. A claim concerning a building contract dispute was struck out on the basis that the claimant had failed to serve particulars of claim within the required 14 days in accordance with CPR 7.4(1)(b). On the claimant's application to set aside that order, the Technology and Construction Court held that a photocopy of a claim form, which was sent by Document Exchange by the claimant's solicitors to the defendants' solicitors, was not the document required for service to be achieved under CPR 6.3. In order to effect proper service by that means, a claim form, as issued and sealed by the court, and as an original document would have had to have been enclosed. Accordingly, the order striking out the claim would be set aside and the claim form was still effective for service.

Re MF Global UK Ltd

Insolvency Administration order. On an application by the administrators of MF Global UK Ltd, the Chancery Division, Companies Court, made an order governing the distribution of funds as client money by the administrators. In order to proceed with a distribution of the balance of the available funds, and to ensure the timely return of client money, a process was needed to deal with rejected claims and unknown claims which could provide a degree of certainty and protection.