Resources

This judgment concerns certain preliminary issues in an ongoing contractual dispute between an oil field operator and a supplier of tubular products relating to allegedly defective tubing used in offshore water injection wells in Ghana. The claimant alleges that the tubing supplied by the defendant was defective and seeks over US$257 million in damages. The preliminary issues dispute was largely concerned with when the contract was formed and which terms applied. The claimant argued that the contract was based on its purchase order and standard terms (albeit amended for the purposes of an earlier order), while the defendant contended its own general conditions were incorporated.The court held that the contract was concluded on 25 November 2008 when the defendant returned a signed purchase order to the claimant. The court therefore held that the contract was governed by the claimant’s amended terms. The court accepted that: i) the defendant’s covering letter of 25 November 2008 stated that it also enclosed the defendant’s own standard terms and conditions in the associated envelope; ii) the defendant did in fact enclose its standard terms and conditions in the envelope; iii) the…

This judgment on a preliminary issue application in a remediation contribution order was the first to consider the test for what is a relevant building in Part 5 of the Building Safety Act 2022.The fire safety defects were in a “low rise” part of a development which was less than 5 storeys and 11m high. However, the other “high rise” part of the development was more than 5 storeys and 11m high. The question was whether the relevant part was a separate building or separate part of a building.The First Tier-Tribunal had to consider, for the first time in a BSA context, the tests for “structural detachment” and the services separation in s.117 of the BSA. The preliminary issue involved consideration of the legal test, as well as expert evidence from, and cross-examination of, structural engineering and building services experts.The First Tier-Tribunal agreed with the Applicant, A2 Dominion, that the relevant part of the building was not a separate building or separate part of a building because:1.    The low rise part was not structurally detached.2.    The services (particularly the heating and hot water) were not provided independently to the low rise part and could not be provided…

Claimants: Crest Nicholson Regeneration Limited, Crest Nicholson (South) Limited, Crest Nicholson Operations Limited and Crest Nicholson PLC V Defendants: Ardmore Construction Limited (In Administration), David Richmond and Partners Limited, Yuanda (UK) Co. Limited, Ardmore Construction Group Limited, Ardmore Group Limited, Ardmore Group Holdings Limited, Paddington Construction Limited, Ardmore Fitout Limited, Celebration Homes Limited and Byrne Properties Limited.This decision of Constable J in the TCC is the first detailed judgment regarding the application of the “just and equitable” test in the context of making a building liability order (“BLO”) under section 130 of the Building Safety Act 2022 (“BSA”). It is the second recorded case of the High Court making a BLO. The first was made by Jefford J in 381 Southwark Park Road RTM Co Ltd v Click St Andrews Ltd (In Liquidation) [2024] EWHC 3569 (TCC). However, unlike here, in that case the defendants did not appear and were not represented.The BLO sought by the Claimants (“Crest”) comprised two parts: First, Crest sought an ‘anticipatory’ BLO against the Fourth to Tenth Defendants (“the BLO Defendants”) making them jointly and…