Payment in unkind
Article Abstract:
The procedural rule allowing a defendant to pay into court an amount of money large enough to meet the liability that would arise from proceedings, and then seek the appropriate order for the costs of the action, is extremely valuable in many construction and engineering cases. The general practice is that a claimant that recovers more than the amount of a payment in should have its costs. However, the recent case Charm Maritime Inc v Elborne Mitchell makes it clear that plaintiffs should be aware that there is a possibility that they will not recover their costs if the judgment sum is only just larger than the payment in.
Publication Name: Building
Subject: Construction and materials industries
ISSN: 0007-3318
Year: 1998
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Beware the exclusion zone
Article Abstract:
There are a number of uncertainties relating to the UK's Construction Act 1996. This legislation covers maintenance to buildings and structures, but it is often hard to make a clear distinction between a building or a structure and its contents. It is also unclear whether collateral warranties are subject to the act. The consultant or contractor giving a collateral warranty to funders, purchasers or tenants does not undertake construction operations under the act. The only exception is 'step-in rights' under collateral warranties to funders.
Publication Name: Building
Subject: Construction and materials industries
ISSN: 0007-3318
Year: 1998
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: Eurovatman cometh within the month. Beware the VAT traps
- Abstracts: Thin end of the wage. Rising sum. New pay talks collapse without deal
- Abstracts: Cladding & curtain walling. Billed to last
- Abstracts: Procurement and the PFI. Final analysis
- Abstracts: Double dutch. Solar power to the people. Tadashi Kawamata's world of wood