Part 1 of the Building Law Reports covers the following key judgments:
- Manchikalapati and Others v Zurich Insurance plc and Another  EWCA Civ 2163
- Farrar and Another v Rylatt and Others  EWCA Civ 1864
- LJH Paving Ltd v Meeres Civil Engineering Ltd  EWHC 2601 (TCC)
- Meadowside Building Developments Ltd (In Liquidation) v 12–18 Hill Street Management Company Ltd  EWHC 2651 (TCC)
A copy of the Introduction is reprinted below.
Introduction to the Building Law Reports Part 1 
In this issue, we report two Court of Appeal decisions and two decisions of the TCC.
In Manchikalapati and Others v Zurich Insurance plc and Another, the Court of Appeal considered the interpretation of an insurance policy taken out by leaseholders of a new development. Since the said policy is in wide use, the decision is a matter of general importance. The decision encompasses, inter alia, questions surrounding the quantum of a cap on liability, whether or not the liability of the insurer depended on the claimants having incurred the cost of the remedial work, whether or not the claimants were required to have pursued a claim against their landlord under the lease, and the number of excesses deductible.
In Farrar and Another v Rylatt and Others the Court of Appeal addressed an ex tempore judgment of the TCC in Leeds concerning allegations that the first appellant had entered into a binding profit share agreement with the first and second respondents regarding two developments. In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the appeal related to findings of fact as to which there is a high bar to overcome, particularly where the judgment is from a specialist court such as the TCC.
In LJH Paving Ltd v Meeres Civil Engineering Ltd , the Deputy High Court Judge (Mr Adam Constable QC) rejected an attempt to avoid enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision by way of a “no dispute” argument.
In Meadowside Building Developments Ltd (In Liquidation) v 12–18 Hill Street Management Company Ltd the same Deputy High Court Judge refused summary judgment in respect of an adjudicator’s decision on the basis that a court would not permit a party to bring itself within an exception to the ordinary position of a company in liquidation (as described in the Bresco decision (currently under appeal to the Supreme Court)) though the auspices of a funding agreement (yet to be disclosed in the present case) which was not merely champertous, but an abuse of process.
About the Building Law Reports
Edited by members and former members of Atkin Chambers, the Building Law Reports are essential reading for legal professionals, construction industry professionals, law libraries and universities. Each report provides expert commentary on key judgments from the editors, including the substance of a case and its implications on past and future decisions.
Described as “the most established and authoritative construction law reports available”, they provide comprehensive coverage from the Technology and Construction Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court and other relevant jurisdictions worldwide, including Hong Kong, Australia and Singapore.
Consulting Editor: The Honourable Mr Justice Fraser