Case Laws

Question 1

What year was Hutton construction ltd v Wilson properties ltd case law?

Answer 1

2017

Question 2

What are the facts of the case?

Answer 2

• Alleged failures of payment applications and payless notice
• residential conversion works on a property
• dispute arose over hutton’s payment no.24 and a payless notice
• adjudication commenced – found favour of hutton based on the faileu of a vailed payless notice by Wilson
• Wilson didn’t pay
• Hutton commencing enforcement proceedings
• Wilson issued a draft part 8 application and claimed a wrong verdict
• Court concluded favour of Hutton entitled to the sum of £491,994.73 originally adjudicated
• Wilson failed to serve vailed pay less notices and provided no evidence contending part 8 application

Question 3

What year was City Inn Ltd v Shepherd Construction Ltd Case Law?

Answer 3

2003

Question 4

What are the facts of the case

Answer 4

• Delaying evet occurred
• Shepherd ltd failed to serve the correct notices, however architect gave 4 weeks of EOT
• Followed by an adjudication, awarded 5 weeks extra of EOT
• City Inn claimed to reverse the above decisions and claim liquidated damages.
• City Inn (client) was successful in court at first. As they didn’t provide any notices
• The courts said failure to comply with clause 13.8.1 was not a breach of contract
• Shepherd argued clause 13.8.5 was a penalty clause
• Also it stats they must provide notices when they formed the opinion that a delay would result. They didn’t form an opinion at the relevant time, they were not in breach of the clause.