Scribd
Upload
5 views12 pages

Combine PDF

The document discusses various legal cases related to construction contracts, including Chattan Development Ltd v Reigill Civil Engineering Contractors Ltd, which addresses arbitration claims and conditions for appeal. It also covers performance bond requirements, obligations regarding fossils and antiquities, and significant court decisions affecting construction contract obligations. Additionally, it highlights the importance of reasonable care in fulfilling contractual duties and the implications of negligent misstatements in financial references.

Uploaded by

haqimakmal1604
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
5 views12 pages

Combine PDF

The document discusses various legal cases related to construction contracts, including Chattan Development Ltd v Reigill Civil Engineering Contractors Ltd, which addresses arbitration claims and conditions for appeal. It also covers performance bond requirements, obligations regarding fossils and antiquities, and significant court decisions affecting construction contract obligations. Additionally, it highlights the importance of reasonable care in fulfilling contractual duties and the implications of negligent misstatements in financial references.

Uploaded by

haqimakmal1604
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 12

BQS 559

PROFESSIONAL
PRACTICE I
COC : APPENDIX TO THE CONDITIONS

Mohsin, Haqim, Diana, Aida,


Syazwanie, Musyirah
CHATTAN DEVELOPMENT LTD v REIGILL
CIVIL ENG CONTRACTORS LTD (2007)

CLAIMENT : CHATTAN DEVELOPMENT

DEFENDANT : REIGILL CIVIL ENG CONTRACTORS


CHATTAN DEVELOPMENT LTD V REIGILL CIVIL ENG
CONTRACTORS LTD (2007)

ISSUE COURT DECISION

Chattan filed an arbitration claim concerning an Award dated The judge found that Reigill was not
August 18, 2006, made in arbitration proceedings between obligated to accept the cheque paid by
Chattan and Reigill. Chattan applied under section 80(5) of the Mr. Cattanach. The judge determined
Arbitration Act 1996 for an extension of time to appeal a question that the £16,000 should be treated as
of law in the Award under section 69 of the Act. The arbitration paid when it was credited to the client
claim should have been issued by September 15, 2006, but was account of Kershaw-Abbot at 3:07 pm.
only issued on September 28, 2006. The judge heard the The judge held that Chattan complied
application on January 15, 2007, and extended the time by 13 with the conditions of the order, and the
days with conditions, including the payment of Reigin's costs on extension of time granted by the order
an indemnity basis, assessed at £16,000. Reigill contends that stands. The judge expressed sympathy
the payment was insufficient to meet the condition, leading to for Reigill's position but found that
the dismissal of the appeal as being out of time. Chattan argues Chattan's compliance warranted the
that the payment made on January 29, 2007, fulfilled the extension of time.
condition and the appeal should proceed.
Hanover University

THANK
YOU♡
Dani Martinez
Engineering | 2023
PERFORMANCE
BOND
PAM 2018 (CLAUSE 39.0) PWD 203A (CLAUSE 13.0)
- Contract the Contractor shall either deposit with the
- Contractor shall submit before the date of commencement
Government a performance bond in cash or alternatively by
of the work
way of a Treasury's Deposit or Banker's Draft or approved
Banker's or Insurance Guarantee equal to 5% of the
-Submit for a sum equivalent to the percentage stated in the
Contract Sum as a condition precedent to the
appendix.
commencement of work.

-PB shall be in the form issued in the terms and conditions


-provide on the date of the posession site
specified in the contract

-the performance may be realesed or refunded to


-valid until 3 months after the completion date
contractor on the completion of making good al defects,
shrinkages or other faults which may appear during the DLP
-if contractor fails to provide or maintain the validity of PB,
the employer shall be entitled to withold or educt an
amount equal to PB from any payment due or to become
due to the contractor
FOSSIL AND
PWD 203A (Clause 65.0)
ANTIQUITIES

a) not to disturb the object & shall cease work if the continuance of the work would endanger the
object.

b) take all necessary steps to preserve the object in the exact position.

c) inform the S.0 of the discovery & location of object.


FOSSIL AND
ANTIQUITIES
PAM 2018 (Clause 33.0)
FOSSIL AND
CIDB (Clause 39.0)
ANTIQUITIES
INFORMATION AND
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE
CONTRACTOR
Royal Brompton Hospital v Hammond (No. 4) (1999)

FACTS
The main contract between the Claimant and the Defendant
provided for contract drawings to be signed as part of the
contract documents. However, clause 5.4 of the contract
required the architect, as the Claimant's agent, to provide
further drawings and details as necessary. SIGNIFICANCE
This case clarifies the obligations of parties in a construction
The Claimant argued that the Defendant was obligated to contract regarding the provision of coordination drawings and the
exercise reasonable care and skill to ensure compliance with importance of acting with reasonable care and skill in fulfilling
clause 5.4, as it was in the contemplation of the parties that contractual duties.
failure to provide the drawings would result in the Claimants
suffering damage in the form of liabilities to the contractor for
breach of clause 5.4.
INFORMATION AND
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE
CONTRACTOR
Neodox Ltd v Swinton and Pendelebury (1958)
CASE FACTS

Claimant: Neodox Ltd, construct sewage works


Defendant: Pendelebury, counsil that hired claimant to do sewage
works
Facts: the claimant agreed to build sewage works for the defendant COURT DECISION
council. The contract said the engineer could decide how things were
done, like digging trenches. The court decided that while the
The court decided that while the engineer's choice on how to do the
engineer's decisions should be honest, the defendant didn't promise
work must be honest, the council didn't promise that the engineer
the engineer would be skilled or reasonable. Justice Diplock said it
would always make reasonable decisions or be an expert. The
was hard to see the engineer's directions as changing the contract's
contract allowed the engineer to pick how to do the job, like digging
terms unless they were explicitly stated as such. So, the issue was
trenches, as long as it satisfied him. Since the contract didn't
about whether the engineer's decisions counted as changes to the
specify exactly how to do each part of the work, the court found it
contract.
hard to say that the engineer's directions were changing or adding
to the job. So, the engineer had the power to decide how to do
things, but the council wasn't responsible for whether those
decisions were good or not.
NEGLIGENT
MISSTATEMENT
Hedley Byrne v Heller (1964)
CASE FACTS

Claimant: Hedley Byrne COURT DECISION


Defendant: Heller and Partners, merchant bankers
and referees for Easipower The court found that H&P’s disclaimer was sufficient to
Facts: Hedley Byrne were interested in working with protect them from liability and Hedley Byrne’s claim failed.
Easipower, a company they had not previously However, the House of Lords ruled that damage for pure
worked with, so they sought a financial reference economic loss could arise in situations where the following
from their bank. Heller and Partners provided a four conditions were met:
satisfactory reference for Easipower, which turned (a) a fiduciary relationship of trust & confidence arises/exists
out to be incorrect and inappropriate. When Hedley between the parties;
Byrne suffered losses following non-payment from (b) the party preparing the advice/information has
voluntarily assumed the risk;
Easipower, they sought a claim against Heller and
(c) there has been reliance on the advice/info by the other
Partners.
party, and
(d) such reliance was reasonable in the circumstances.

You might also like