Split House / Alma-nac

first_imgSplit House / Alma-nacSave this projectSaveSplit House / Alma-nac Heyne Tillett Steel M&E: CopyHouses•East Sussex, United Kingdom “COPY” ShareFacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappMailOrhttps://www.archdaily.com/773937/split-house-alma-nac Clipboard “COPY” CopyAbout this officeAlma-nacOfficeFollowProductsWoodGlassConcrete#TagsProjectsBuilt ProjectsSelected ProjectsResidential ArchitectureHousesEast SussexUnited KingdomPublished on September 24, 2015Cite: “Split House / Alma-nac” 24 Sep 2015. ArchDaily. Accessed 11 Jun 2021. ISSN 0719-8884Browse the CatalogSinkshansgroheBathroom Mixers – MetrisVinyl Walls3MVinyl Finish – DI-NOC™ Cross HairlinePartitionsSkyfoldVertically Folding Operable Walls – Mirage®SinksThe Splash LabTrough Sink – Monolith A SeriesSkylightsVELUX CommercialModular Skylights in Helmkehof Cultural CenterBathroom AccessoriesBradley Corporation USAWashroom AccessoriesConcrete FloorsSikaDecorative Floor CoatingsMetal PanelsSherwin-Williams Coil CoatingsFluropon® Coating in Thaden SchoolWood Boards / HPL PanelsInvestwoodViroc Nature for Partition WallsMineral / Organic PaintsKEIMMineral Wood Stain – Lignosil®-VeranoDoorsdormakabaEntrance Doors – MAGNEOSinksECOPIXELWashbasin – Light Basin LTBMore products »Save世界上最受欢迎的建筑网站现已推出你的母语版本!想浏览ArchDaily中国吗?是否翻译成中文现有为你所在地区特制的网站?想浏览ArchDaily中国吗?Take me there »✖You’ve started following your first account!Did you know?You’ll now receive updates based on what you follow! Personalize your stream and start following your favorite authors, offices and users.Go to my stream Architects: Alma-nac Year Completion year of this architecture project Photographs Manufacturers: Cupa Pizarras, ETEM, INNTEC Save this picture!© Jack Hobhouse+ 21 Share EEP 2014 Photographs:  Jack Hobhouse Manufacturers Brands with products used in this architecture project Year:  Products used in this ProjectWindowsAccoyaAccoya® Windows and DoorsEnclosures / Double Skin FacadesCupa PizarrasRainscreen Cladding System CUPACLAD 201 VANGUARDProject Engineer:Mark GoodbrandLighting Design:Clementine RodgersSpecialist Joinery:Olly AdamsCity:East SussexCountry:United KingdomMore SpecsLess SpecsSave this picture!© Jack HobhouseText description provided by the architects. Split House is a contemporary private house on a coastal hill top in Fairlight, Rother. The client, a couple well engaged with the local community,  wanted to build a through-life house that would engage with the surrounding landscape, with a construction process that would draw from the local trades.Save this picture!© Jack HobhouseInformed by the brief for such a sustainable home that would celebrate its hilltop site, Split House is defined by orientating key internal spaces towards one of the series of outstanding surrounding views: a wildflower valley, the immediate coast, the neighbouring village of Pett and the headland of Dungeness.Save this picture!Ground Floor PlanIn responding directly towards these views, and sheltering from the prevailing winds, the volume of the building is naturally fragmented. The resulting form provides a clearly delineated public side, facing the adjacent houses and a wind protected private side, open to the wild flower meadow.Save this picture!© Jack HobhouseTimetableFrom winning the client led invited competition to submitting for planning approval took 6 months, with construction starting approximately one year later in June 2012. A stringent costing exercise was undertaken during this process, in an effort to reach the client’s budgetary target while delivering a fixed area and provision schedule.Save this picture!© Jack HobhouseThe building is a highly insulated steel super frame with timber infill set over a concrete pool base and slab, a method chosen as being the most efficient in dealing with the large cantilevered form. An external palette of slate, timber and render sits within a landscape framed with gabion walls. Through use of an un-lapped rainscreen cladding system, slate use was reduced by a third.Save this picture!© Jack HobhouseThrough building form and specific material choices, including the slates and stainless steel clips set alongside deep timber-lined angled reveals, Split House creates an ongoing set of changing shadows and reflections throughout the day.Save this picture!© Jack Hobhouse Extending this split geometry into the landscape, terminated by the potting shed, creates a soft sense of enclosure, allowing for the provision of a private garden without visually breaking from the neighbouring wildflower meadow. The internal junction of the two forms split levels provides a protected snug. Inclusive design/ through life construction:Save this picture!First Floor PlanSplit House is designed as a future proofed house. Provisions such as an internal lift, wheel chair friendly circulation spaces, flush thresholds, showers with seating space and  WCs with space for future grab rails all serve to ensure the house is accessible and useable by all. Save this picture!© Jack HobhouseThrough life flexibility is hidden within the design. A section of the ground floor plan can be simply re-arranged to provide a small residence for a live in carer from the bedroom, bathroom and snug.Save this picture!© Jack HobhouseProject gallerySee allShow lessRenzo Piano to Break Ground on Des Moines’ Kum & Go HeadquartersArchitecture NewsColumbus Museum of Art Expansion and Renovation / DesignGroupSelected Projects Share Projects ShareFacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappMailOrhttps://www.archdaily.com/773937/split-house-alma-nac Clipboard Products translation missing: en-US.post.svg.material_description Houses ArchDaily Structural Engineers: United Kingdom Split House / Alma-naclast_img read more

admin

What’s New With Novation? A Comment On Sanjiv Prakash v. Seema Kukreja & Ors

first_imgColumnsWhat’s New With Novation? A Comment On Sanjiv Prakash v. Seema Kukreja & Ors Vidhi Thaker8 April 2021 9:25 PMShare This – xA three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in SanjivPrakash v. Seema Kukreja & Ors.,[1] recently held that the issue whether an agreement which contains an arbitration clause has or has not been novated, cannot be decided by the Courts at the Section 11 stage. The judgment is a step forward, since it clarifies the narrow scope of judicial intervention at…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginA three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in SanjivPrakash v. Seema Kukreja & Ors.,[1] recently held that the issue whether an agreement which contains an arbitration clause has or has not been novated, cannot be decided by the Courts at the Section 11 stage. The judgment is a step forward, since it clarifies the narrow scope of judicial intervention at the pre-reference stage. Background Facts The issue arose out of a Memorandum of Understanding executed between members of the Prakash family (i.e. the Appellant and the Respondents), who collectively held the entire share-holding of ANI Media Private Ltd. (“the Company”). The MoU inter alia provided that in the event any members of the Prakash family were desirous of selling / bequeathing their shares, the same shall be offered to the Appellant. The MoU contained an arbitration clause, which provided for resolution of disputes by a sole arbitrator. Subsequently, a Share Holders Agreement was executed between the Prakash family and Thomson Reuters Corporation, whereby the Prakash family divested 49% share-holding of ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. in favour of Thomson Reuters. The Share Holders Agreement also contained an arbitration clause. It further provided that the Agreement was in supersession of all previous agreements between the parties. On the same day, a Share Purchase Agreement was executed between the Prakash family and Thomson Reuters, which contained an arbitration clause similar to that in the Share Holders Agreement. The Respondents (members of the Prakash family) decided to transfer their shareholding in the Company to other family members, excepting the Appellant. This led to the Appellant invoking the arbitration clause contained in the MoU, stating that he had the pre-emptive right to purchase the shares of the other members of the family. Proceedings before the High Court The Appellant filed an application u/S. 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the 1996 Act”) before the Delhi High Court[2], contending that since the MoU was breached, an arbitrable dispute arose between the parties, which required to be adjudicated by a sole arbitrator. On the other hand, the Respondents contended that the MoU had been superseded by the Share Holders Agreement, and was therefore novated. It was submitted that since the MoU did not exist after the execution of the Share Holders Agreement, there was no arbitration agreement between the parties. The High Court dismissed the application under Section 11, and held that the invocation of the arbitration clause under the MoU was not justifiable, since the arbitration clause therein had perished due to novation of the MoU. The Court held that once the MoU was superseded by the Share Holders Agreement, the arbitration clause contained in the MoU also falls with it. Proceedings before the Supreme Court In the judgment, the Supreme Court traced the evolution of the scope of power exercised by the Courts at the Section 11 stage in the post 2015 regime. The Bench comprising of the Justices R.F. Nariman, B.R. Gavai and Hrishikesh Roy discussed the narrow scope of Section 11, and held that the issue of novation of an agreement cannot be decided by the Courts in exercise of the limited prima facie review as to whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties. The Court placed reliance on the Judgment in Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation,[3] particularly paragraph 148, wherein it was held that at the pre-reference stage, the Court can only interfere when it is manifest that the claims are ex facie time-barred and dead, or there is no subsisting dispute. All other cases should be referred to the arbitral tribunal for decision on merits. This would also be the position in cases where a plea of novation is raised. Reliance was also placed on the Judgment of the Division Bench in BSNL v. Nortel Networks India Pvt. Ltd.,[4] wherein it was clarified that the judgment in Vidya Drolia had not resurrected the pre-amendment position in SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering.[5] In that case, the Court held that the rule is to refer the disputes to arbitration. Following the line of judgments in Vidya Drolia and BSNL v. Nortel, the Supreme Court held that the determination whether the MoU had been novated by the Share Holders Agreement would require a detailed consideration of the Agreements, and surrounding circumstances. Such a determination could not be made at the Section 11 stage, given the narrow scope of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court allowed the Civil Appeal, and appointed (Retd.) Justice Aftab Alam to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. Aftermath of the Judgment and its impact on Indian arbitration jurisprudence The Judgment in Sanjiv Prakash finds itself steering the discussion on the scope of judicial intervention at the pre-reference stage, in the post 2015 era. Prior to this judgment, the issue with respect to novation of an arbitration agreement was found in Union of India v. Kishori Lal,[6] wherein the Court held that if a contract is superseded by another, the arbitration clause being part of the earlier contract falls with it. Further, in Damodar Valley Corporation v. K.K. Kar,[7] the Court held that if the new contract did not contain an arbitration clause, the parties would have no right to invoke the arbitration clause from the superseded contract. In Sanjiv Prakash however, the Court distinguished the judgments in Kishori Lal and Damodar Valley on the ground that the judgments dealt with novation in the context of the Arbitration Act, 1940 which had a completely different scheme from that contained in Section 16 read with Section 11 (6A) of the 1996 Act. The decision in Sanjiv Prakash therefore mirrors the legislative intent in the post 2015 phase, and cements the position of India as a pro-arbitration jurisdiction.Views are personal The Author is an Advocate at the Supreme Court of India [1] Civil Appeal No. 975 / 2021, Judgment dated 06.04.2021 : LL 2021 SC 198. [2] Arb.P. No. 4 / 2020 [3] (2021) 2 SCC 1 [4] 2021 SCC OnLine SC 207 : LL 2021 SC 153. [5] (2005) 8 SCC 618 [6] [1960] 1 SCR 493 [7] (1974) 1 SCC 141 Next Storylast_img read more

admin