Jerram Falkus Construction Ltd v Fenice Investments Inc [electronic resource]
Language: English Publication details: 2011Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2011] EWHC 1935 (TCC), 21 July 2011. For the reasons given in Section 5, it is not open to JFC to challenge the decision in the third adjudication. They are therefore not entitled to make any further delay-related claim. It would also mean that Fenice is entitled to liquidated damages as set out. The other two conclusively arguments, one raised by each side, must fail.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 154040-2001 |
Browsing Virtual shelves, Shelving location: Online Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
[2011] EWHC 1935 (TCC), 21 July 2011. For the reasons given in Section 5, it is not open to JFC to challenge the decision in the third adjudication. They are therefore not entitled to make any further delay-related claim. It would also mean that Fenice is entitled to liquidated damages as set out. The other two conclusively arguments, one raised by each side, must fail.