Archive: April 22, 2008

1
No Requirement to Dispense with Leave to Appeal Arbitral Award Under Section 69
2
Constructive Notice Not Established by Discussion in Meetings
3
Landscaper Must Have Proper License to Recover Damages for Breach of Contract

No Requirement to Dispense with Leave to Appeal Arbitral Award Under Section 69

Royal & Sun Alliance Ins. PLC v. BAE Sys. (Operations) Ltd., 2008 WL 924979, [2008] EWHC 743 (Queen’s Bench Div., Commercial Ct.)

An arbitral award pursuant to the arbitration under LCIA rules of an insurance dispute formed the subject matter of this claim.  Royal & Sun sought to appeal the award to the English court on a point of law.  The defendants argued that s.69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (the “Act”) and the terms of the relevant arbitration agreement obliged Royal & Sun to seek the leave of the court.  The question was settled in Royal & Sun’s favour as a pure question of construction involving consideration of the Act, the LCIA rules and the arbitration agreement. Read More

Constructive Notice Not Established by Discussion in Meetings

Geonie v. O.D. & P. N.Y., Ltd., 855 N.Y.S.2d 495 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

An injured worker, Geonie, filed a negligence suit against multiple defendants, including the general contractor, after stepping into an opening left by the removal of a tile from a raised floor in a computer room.  Geonie argued that defendants failed to provide adequate safety devices to protect against an elevation-related hazard and failed to adequately supervise the work area.  He further claimed that because the removed tile was discussed at weekly safety meetings, the defendants had, at least, constructive notice of the problem.  The trial court dismissed Geonie’s claims under New York Labor Law and his negligence claim against the general contractor. Read More

Landscaper Must Have Proper License to Recover Damages for Breach of Contract

Hakimi v. Cantwell Landscaping & Design, Inc., 855 N.Y.S.2d 273 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Hakimi filed a breach of contract claim against Cantwell stemming from landscaping work performed on the property where Hakimi was having a new home built.  Cantwell admitted that it was not licensed as a home improvement contractor at the time it did the work.  In response to the lawsuit suit, Cantwell filed a mechanic’s lien and a notice of pendency against Hakimi’s property.  Cantwell claimed that it did not need a home improvement contractor’s license because Hakimi was building a new house and the administrative code exempted new home construction from the home improvement licensing requirements.  Hakimi moved to dismiss Cantwell’s counterclaims and the Supreme Court denied the motion. Read More

Copyright © 2019, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.