An application was recently made to restrain notice being given of a winding-up petition which sought payment of some £820,000 following an adjudicator's decision in respect of goods supplied and services rendered for the development and conversion of Victory House. The adjudicator had rejected Victory House's argument that it was not liable to pay the sum identified in the interim application because the parties had entered into a memorandum of understanding which provided for other payments to be made.
CBUK and Sarens recently sought a determination, following an adjudicator's decision, of a dispute over the terms and interpretation of a subcontract. Sarens had been engaged by CBUK to provide cranes and other equipment for the installation of six bridges along the M6 link road. CBUK had been engaged as subcontractor to Costain under a modified NEC3 contract. The dispute was about what, if anything, CBUK and Sarens had agreed about the provision of liquidated damages.
After Gosvenor agreed to perform certain cladding works for Aygun, disputes arose and Gosvenor applied to enforce an adjudicator's decision. Aygun accepted that adjudicators' decisions will be enforced by the courts, regardless of errors of fact or law, but alleged fraud on the part of Gosvenor, stating that "a substantial proportion" of the adjudication award had been based on sums which were fraudulently invoiced. However, no allegations of fraud had been raised in the adjudication proceedings.
In 2014 OSI and Lagan entered into a contract for the design and construction of a new production facility. During the course of the contract, OSI's agent issued certain instructions and in July 2016 OSI gave notice to Lagan that it was in default in failing to comply with four of these instructions. OSI said that Lagan did not remedy the default and accordingly gave notice of termination. In a preliminary hearing, Lagan held that two of the contract instructions had been invalid.
In a recent judgment in an ongoing dispute about the quality of steel monopiles at an offshore wind farm, a judge had to consider claims for overhead and profit. The plaintiff had claimed a percentage for overheads at a rate of 4%, which the judge was reluctant to accept. While the judge suspected that the plaintiff may well have incurred increased overhead costs as a result of breaches of contract, he was not prepared "to pluck a figure out of the air".