Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Construction Law
Julian Bailey
(2011)
Construction Insurance
Marshall Levine and Roger ter Haar QC
(1991)
ADJUDICATI ON I N
CO NS TRUCT I ON LAW
Darryl Royce
informa law
from Routledge
First published 2016
by Informa Law from Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
Informa Law from Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business
The right of Darryl Royce to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him/her in
accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by
any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying
and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the
publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are
used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Lloyd’s is the registered trade mark of the Society incorporated by the Lloyd’s Act 1871 by the name of
Lloyd’s.
ISBN 978-1-138-91145-1
eISBN: 978-1-315-69267-8
Typeset in Plantin by
Servis Filmsetting Ltd, Stockport, Cheshire
ACKN OW L E DGM ENTS
I must first acknowledge that the genesis of this venture lies in my declining facul-
ties, particularly my memory, so that necessity has obliged me to compile a series
of notes of judgments concerning adjudication as they have been handed down
over the years. Next I would like to thank Jackie Day, Abigail Pukaniuk, Alexia
Sutton, Joshua Wells and the rest of the team at Informa Law for their efficiency,
enthusiasm and forbearance in bringing this project to fruition. I also wish to pay
tribute to the Official Referees and their successors, the Judges of the Technology
and Construction Court, who have had to make sense of the Housing Grants,
Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 in both its original and now allegedly
improved form. I salute my colleagues in Atkin Chambers for their lack of overt
derision upon learning that I was writing a book. Lastly, I dedicate this work to my
wife Rosemary and my daughter Isobel, although painfully aware that such a gesture
falls considerably short of the compliment deserved by each of them.
v
This page has been left blank intentionally
TABL E OF C O NTENTS
vii
CONTENTS
viii
CONTENTS
ix
CONTENTS
x
CONTENTS
xi
CONTENTS
xii
CONTENTS
xiii
CONTENTS
xiv
CONTENTS
xv
CONTENTS
xvi
CONTENTS
xvii
CONTENTS
xviii
CONTENTS
Appendices 323
Appendix A 325
Appendix B 345
Appendix C 362
Appendix D 398
Index 427
xix
This page has been left blank intentionally
TABL E OF CASES
AABB Ltd v Bam Nuttall Ltd [2013] EWHC 1983 (TCC) ............................................110
ABB Power Construction Ltd v Norwest Holst Engineering Ltd (2000) 77 Con LR 20 ...... 8, 13,
17, 18
ABB Zantingh Ltd v Zedal Building Services Ltd [2001] BLRBLR 66 ................................15
AC Yule & Son Ltd v Speedwell Roofing & Cladding Ltd [2007] EWHC 1360 (TCC),
[2007] BLRBLR 499 ............................................................................................115
AJ Lucas Operations Pty Ltd v Mac-Attack Equipment Hire Pty Ltd [2009] NTCA 4;
(2009) 25 NTLR 14 .............................................................................................240
AT Stannard Ltd v Tobutt & Anor [2014] EWHC 3491 (TCC).......................................153
AWG Construction Services v Rockingham Motor Speedway [2004] EWHC 888 (TCC),
[2004] TCLR 6 ....................................................................................................188
Absolute Rentals v Glencor Enterprises Ltd, [2001] C.I.L.L. 1637 .....................................189
Aceramais Holdings Ltd v Hadleigh Partnerships Ltd [2009] EWHC 1664 (TCC) .............199
Adelaide Linings Pty Ltd v Romaldi Construction Pty Ltd [2013] SASC 110 ......................246
Adonis Construction v O’Keefe Soil Remediation [2009] EWHC 2047 (TCC), [2009]
CILL 2784.............................................................................................................44
Aedifice Partnership Ltd v Ashwin Shah [2010] EWHC 2106 (TCC), 132 Con LR 100 ....181
Air Design (Kent) Ltd v Deerglen (Jersey) Ltd [2008] EWHC 3047 (TCC), [2009] CILL
2657 ......................................................................................................................56
Alexander & Law Ltd v Coveside (21BPR) Ltd [2013] EWHC 3949 (TCC)....................162
Allen Wilson Joinery Ltd v Privetgrange Construction Ltd [2008] EWHC 2802 (TCC) ........ 24,
25, 132
Allied P&L Ltd v Paradigm Housing Group Ltd [2009] EWHC 2890 (TCC); [2010]
BLR 59 ................................................................................................................178
Allied Vision Ltd v VPS Film Entertainment Gmbh [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 392 ....................180
Alstom Signalling Ltd v Jarvis Facilities Ltd [2004] EWHC 1285 (TCC) ................. 154, 312
Altys Multi-Services Pty Ltd v Grandview Modular Building Systems P/L [2008] QSC
26 ................................................................................................................ 231, 232
Amber Construction Services Ltd v London Interspace HG Ltd [2007] EWHC 3042
(TCC), [2008] BLRBLR 74 .................................................................................192
AMEC Capital Projects Ltd v Whitefriars City Estates Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 1418,
[2005] BLRBLR 1 ....................................................................................83, 95, 163
Amec Civil Engineering Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport [2004] EWHC Civ 2339
(TCC); affirmed [2005] EWCA Civ 291, [2005] BLR 227 ............. 46, 47, 49, 50, 112
Amec Group Ltd v Thames Water Utilities Ltd [2010] EWHC 419 (TCC) ................... 51, 169
Amsalem v Raivid [2008] EWHC 3226 (TCC) .............................................................196
Anglo Swiss Holdings Ltd v Pakman Lucas Ltd [2009] EWHC 3212 (TCC), [2010] BLR
109 ......................................................................................................................202
xxi
TABLE OF CASES
Arcadis UK Ltd v May and Baker Ltd (t/a Sanofi) [2013] EWHC 87 (TCC) ..................106
Ashville Investments Ltd v Elmer Contractors Ltd 1989] 1 Q.B. 488 ....................................55
Aspect Contracts (Asbestos) Ltd v Higgins Construction Plc [2013] EWHC 1322 (TCC),
[2013] BLR 417; [2013] EWCA Civ 1541; [2015] UKSC 38; [2015] 1 WLR 2961 ..209
Associated Provincial Picture House Ltd v Wednesbury Corpn. [1948] 1 K.B. 223.................107
Atlantic Computers Plc, Re [1992] Ch 505 ........................................................................40
Austin Hall Building Ltd v Buckland Securities Ltd [2001] BLR 272 ......38, 39, 140, 141, 170
Austruc Constructions Ltd v ACA Developments Pty Ltd [2004] NSWSC 131 ....................220
Aveat Heating Ltd v Jerram Falkus Construction Ltd [2007] EWHC 131 (TCC), 113
Con LR 13, [2007] T.C.L.R. 3 ................................................ 31, 32, 65, 84, 116, 293
Avoncroft Construction Ltd v Sharba Homes (CN) Ltd [2008] EWHC 933 (TCC),
(2008) 119 Con LR 130, [2008] TCLR 7 ..............................................................190
Axis Plumbing NT Pty Ltd v Option Group (NT) Pty Ltd [2014] NTSC 22 ......................240
BM Alliance Coal Operations Pty Ltd v BGC Contracting Pty Ltd [2013] QCA 394 ...........233
Baldwin Industrial Services plc v Barr Ltd [2003] BLR 176 ...............................................11
Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd v Mayor & Burgesses of London Borough of Lambeth
[2002] EWHC 597 (TCC), [2002] BLR 288..........................................101, 165, 167
Balfour Beatty Construction v Serco Ltd [2004] EWHC 3336 (TCC) ...............................170
Balfour Beatty Engineering Services (HY) Ltd v Shepherd Construction Ltd [2009] EWHC
2218 (TCC).........................................................................................................122
Ballast Plc v The Burrell Company (Construction Management) Limited [2001] ScotCS
159, [2001] BLR 529 ................................................................................... 114, 168
Banner Holdings Ltd v Colchester B.C. [2010] EWHC 139 (TCC)...................................293
Barnes & Elliot Ltd v Taylor Woodrow Holdings Ltd [20003] EWHC 3100 (TCC), [2004]
BLR 111 ................................................................................ 116, 117, 118, 120, 165
Barr Ltd v Law Mining Co Ltd (2001) 80 Con LR 13 ......................................................52
Bearmans Ltd v Metroploitan Police District Receiver [1961] 1 WLRWLR 634 .....................80
Beck Interiors Ltd v Classic Decorative Finishing Ltd [2012] EWHC 1956 (TCC) .............176
Beck Interiors Ltd v UK Flooring Contractors Ltd [2012] EWHC 1808 (TCC), [2012]
BLR 417 ..............................................................................................................187
Beck Peppiatt Ltd v Norwest Holst Construction Ltd [2003] EWHC 822 (TCC), [2003]
BLR 316 .......................................................................................................... 47, 50
Benfield Construction Ltd v Trudson (Hatton) Ltd [2008] EWHC 2333 (TCC), [2008]
CILL 2633.............................................................................................................92
Bennett v FMK Construction Ltd , [2005] EWHC 1179 (TCC), 101 Con LR 92 ...............66
Bennett (Electrical) Services Ltd v Inviron Ltd [2007] EWHC 49 (TCC) ...........................23
Bill Biakh v Hyundai Corporation [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 187 ..........................................108
Bloor Construction (UK) Ltd v Bower & Kirkland (London) Ltd [2000] BLR 314 ............ 117,
137, 167, 280
Board & Trustees of National Museums & Galleries on Merseyside v AEW Architects &
Designers Ltd [2013] EWHC 2403 (TCC) .............................................................204
Bothma v Mayhaven Health Care Ltd [2006] EWHC 2601 (QB); [2007] EWCA Civ 527...53
Boutique Venues Pty Ltd v JACG Pty Ltd [2007] NTSC 5 ................................................238
Bouygues E & S Contracting UK Ltd v Vital Energi Utilities Ltd [2014] CSOH 115 ...........103
Bouygues (UK) Ltd v Dahl-Jensen Ltd [2000] BLR 522, 524, CA .........................4, 43, 108,
136, 142, 158, 159, 189
Bovis Lend Lease Ltd v Triangle Development Ltd [2003] BLR 31 .....................................171
Bovis Lend Lease Ltd v Trustees of the London Clinic [2009] 64 (TCC) ...............................62
BremerHandelsgesellschaft mbH v Raiffeisen Hauptgenossenschaft eG [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
434 ........................................................................................................................57
xxii
TABLE OF CASES
Bridgeway Constructions Ltd v Tolent Construction Ltd [2000] C.I.L.L. 1662 ............. 135, 271
Bitannia Pty Ltd v Parkline Constructions Pty Ltd [2006] NSWCA 238 ............................219
Broadwell v k3D [2006] ADJ CS 04/21 ................................................................. 114, 169
Brodyn Pty Ltd t/a Time Cost and Quality v Davenport (2004) 61 NSWLR 421 ........219, 220,
222, 223, 224, 229, 233, 235
Brown (L.) & Sons Ltd v Crosby Homes (North West) Ltd [2005] EWHC 3503 (TCC).........5
Bryen & Langley v Boston [2005] EWCA Civ 973; [2005] BLR 508 .....................34, 35, 36
Built Environs Pty Ltd v Tali Engineering Pty Ltd [2013] SASC 84 ....................243, 245, 246
Buxton Building Contractors Ltd v Governors of Durand Primary School Buxton Building
Contractors Ltd v Governors of Durand Primary School [2004] EWHC 733 (TCC),
[2004] BLR 474 ...................................................................................................108
C & B Scene Concept Design Ltd v Isobars Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 46,[2002] BLR
93 ................................................................................................................ 108, 167
CCD Group Pty Ltd v Premier Drywall Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1012 ..............................239
CG Group Ltd v Breyer Group Plc (No. 1) [2013] EWHC 2722 (TCC) ...........................106
CG Group Ltd v Breyer Group Plc (No. 2) [2013] EWHC 2959 (TCC) ...........................195
CIB Properties Ltd v Birse Construction Ltd [2004] EWHC 514 (TCC); [2005] BLR 173 ...63
CJP Builders Ltd v William Verrey Ltd [2008] EWHC 2025 (TCC), [2008] BLR 545 .......109
CN Associates v Holbeton Ltd [2011] EWHC 43 (TCC), [2011] BLR 261 ......................181
CRJ Services Ltd v Lanstar Ltd (t/a CSG Lanstar) [2011] EWHC 972 (TCC) ................111
CSC Braehead Leisure Ltd v Laing O’Rourke Scotland Ltd [2008] CSOH 119, [2009]
BLR 49 ........................................................................................................ 121, 186
Camden, Mayor & Burgesses of London Borough of, v Makers UK Ltd [2009] EWHC 605
(TCC) ...................................................................................................................61
Cameron, A., Ltd v J. Mowlem & Co. plc (1990) 25 Con LR 11, CA ....................................1
Cantillon Ltd v Urvasco Ltd [2008] EWHC 282 (TCC), [2008] BLR 250... 78, 105, 112, 186
Cape Durasteel Ltd v Rosser and Russell Building Services Ltd [1995] 46 Con LR 75 ..........205
Capitol Avenue Development Sdn Bhd v Bauer (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (Originating Summons
No: 25C-5-09/2014) .............................................................................................262
Captiva Estates Ltd v Rybarn Ltd [2005] EWHC 2744 (TCC); [2006] BLR 66 ................29
Carillion Construction Ltd v Devonport Royal Dockyard Ltd [2002] BLR79 ................... 23, 47
Carillion Construction Ltdv Devonport Royal Dockyard Ltd [2005] EWCA 1358, [2006]
B. L.R. 15 ......................................................... 78, 121, 131, 166, 170, 191, 253, 254
Carillion Construction Ltd v Stephen Andrew Smith [2011] EWHC 2910 (TCC) ................93
Carillion Utility Services Ltd v SP Power Systems Ltd [2011] ScotCS CSOH_139 .............104
Carter, R.G., Ltd v Edmund Nuttall Ltd, 21st June 2000, unreported ........................... 33, 59
Channel Tunnel Group Ltd v Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd [1993] AC 334 .....................297
Chartbrook Limited v Persimmon Homes Limited [2009] 1 A.C. 1101 ................................164
Chase Oyster Bar v Hamo Industries [2010] NSWCA 190 ....................................... 223, 237
Citex Professional Services Ltd v Kenmore Developments Ltd [2004] ScotCS 20 ..................207
City Inn Ltd v Shepherd Construction Ltd [2001] ScotCS 187 ..........................................206
Clarence Street Pty Ltd v Isis Projects Pty Ltd (2005) 64 NSWLR 448 ..............................220
Class Electrical Services v Go Electrical [2013] NSWSC 363 [33] (McDougall J)..............216
Cleveland Bridge (UK) Ltd v Whessoe-Volker Stevin Joint Venture [2010] EWHC 1076,
[2010] BLR 415 ............................................................................................. 14, 185
Coleraine Skip Hire v Ecomesh Ltd [2008] NIQB 141 .......................................................10
Collins (Contractors) Ltd v Baltic Quay Management (1994) Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ
1757, [2005] BLR 63 .................................................................... 46, 48, 49, 50, 112
Compania Maritima Zorroza SA v Sesostris SA,The Marques de Bolarque [1984] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep 652, 660........................................................................................................179
xxiii
TABLE OF CASES
xxiv
TABLE OF CASES
Ellis Building Contractors Ltd v Goldstein [2011] EWHC 269 (TCC) ...............................101
Emcor Drake & Skull Ltd v Costain Construction Ltd [2004] EWHC 2439 (TCC),
(2004) 97 Con L.R. 142 .........................................................................................88
England v Inglis [1920] 2 K.B. 636 .................................................................................80
Enterprise Managed Services Ltd v Tony McFadden Utilities Ltd [2009] EWHC 3222
(TCC) ........................................................................................................42, 43, 62
Epping Electrical Company Ltd v Briggs and Forrester (Plumbing Services) Ltd [2007]
EWHC 4 (TCC); [2007] BLR 126 .................................................. 31, 119, 165, 293
Essex C.C. v Essex Congregational Church Union [1963] A.C. 808, H.L.(E.) .....................176
Estor Ltd v Multifit (UK) Ltd [2009] EWHC 2108 (TCC), 126 Con LR 40 ...................128
Eurocom Ltd v Siemens Plc [2014] EWHC 3710 (TCC) ........................................... 70, 156
Evje, The, EB Aaby’s Rederi A/S v Union of India [1974] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 57 (HL)................50
F. & G. Sykes (Wessex) Ltd v Fine Fare Ltd [1967] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 53.................................46
FW Cook Ltd v Shimzu (UK) Ltd [2000] BLR 199 .........................................................58
Farebrother Building Services Ltd v Frogmore Investments Ltd [2001] CILL 1762 ...............184
Farrelly (M & E) Building Services Ltd v Byrne Brothers (Formwork) Ltd [2013] EWHC
1186 (TCC).........................................................................................................107
Fastrack Contractors Ltd v Morrison Construction Ltd [2000] 1 BLR 168 ........ 47, 51, 85, 162,
166, 176
Fence Gate Ltd v James R Knowles Ltd (2001) 84 Con LR 206...................................... 7, 19
Fenice Investments Inc. v Jerram Falkus Construction Ltd [2009] EWHC 3272 (TCC),
(2009) 128 Con LR 124 .......................................................................................201
Fenice Investments Inc. v Jerram Falkus Construction Ltd [2011] EWHC 1678 (TCC),
(2011) 141 Con LR 206 .................................................................. 67, 124, 125, 126
Ferson Contractors Ltd v Levolux AT Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 11, [2003] BLR 118 ............171
Fileturn Ltd v Royal Garden Hotel Ltd [2010] EWHC 1736 (TCC), [2010] BLR 512 ........82
Filite (Runcorn) Ltd v Aqua-Lift (1989) 45 BLR 27, C.A .................................................55
‘Fiona Trust, The’: see Premium Nafta Products Ltd v Fili Shipping Co. Ltd
Fox v Star Newspaper Co. [1900] A.C. 19 ........................................................................86
GPS Marine Contractors Ltd v Ringway Infrastructure Services Ltd [2010] EWHC 283
(TCC), [2010] BLR 377 .............................................................................. 155, 179
Galliford Try Building Ltd v Estura Ltd [2015] EWHC 412 (TCC) ................... 314, 315, 321
Galliford Try Construction Ltd v Michael Heal Associates Ltd [2003] EWHC 2886 (TCC)....24
Galliford (UK) Ltd v Markel Capital Ltd [2003] EWHC 1216 (QB) ....................... 141, 153
Geoffrey Osbourne Ltd v Atkins Rail Ltd [2009] EWHC 2425 (TCC), [2010] BLR 363 ...202
George Park v The Fenton Partnership [2001] CILL 1712 ................................................146
Gibson Lea Interiors Ltd v Makro Shelf Service Ltd [2001] BLR 407 ............................ 10, 11
Gillies Ramsay Diamond v PJW Enterprises Ltd [2004] BLR 131 .......................................20
Gipping Construction Ltd v Eaves Ltd [2008] EWHC 3134 (TCC).............................. 3, 109
Glencot Development & Design Co. Ltd v Ben Barrett & Son (Contractors) Ltd [2001]
BLR 207 ...................................................................................................96, 99, 164
Glendalough Associated SA v Harris Calnan Construction Ltd [2013] EWHC 3142
(TCC) ............................................................................................................. 24, 26
Godwin v Swindon Borough Council [2001] EWCA Civ 1478, [2002] 1 WLR 997 ...........197
Graham Anstee-Brooke, ex p Karara Mining Ltd, Re [2013] WASC 59 ..............................236
Gray & Sons Builders (Bedford) Ltd v Essential Box Company Ltd [2006] EWHC 2520
(TCC), (2006) 108 Con LR 49.............................................................................190
Griffin & Anor t/a K & D Contractors v Midas Homes Ltd (2000) 78 Con LR 152 ............ 47,
50, 57, 130
Grindley Constructions Pty Ltd v Painting Masters Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 234 ................225
xxv
TABLE OF CASES
Grocon Constructors v Planit Cocciardi Joint Venture [No.2] [2009] VSC 426 ....... 213, 229, 230
Group Connex South Eastern Ltd v MJ Building Services PLC [2004] BLR 333 ..................24
Grovedeck Ltd v Capital Demolition Ltd [2000] BLR 181 .....................................26, 51, 163
Guardi Shoes Ltd v Datum Contracts [2002] CILL 1934 .................................................146
H G Construction Ltd v Ashwell Homes (East Anglia) Ltd [2007] EWHC 144 (TCC),
[2007] BLR 175 .....................................................................................................91
H S Works Ltd v Enterprise Management Services Ltd [2009] EWHC 729 (TCC), [2009]
BLR 378 ...................................................................................................... 174, 201
Halki Shipping Corp. v Sopex Oils Ltd [1998] 1 WLR 726, CA ...........................47, 143, 144
Hansen Yuncken Pty Ltd v Ericson t/a Fleas Concreting [2011] QSC 327 ...........................234
Harding (t/a M.J. Harding Contractors) v Paice [2014] EWHC 3824 (TCC)................ 0, 313
Harlow & Milner Ltd v Teasdale [2006] EWHC 54 (TCC) ...............................................45
Harlow & Milner Ltd v Teasdale [2006] EWHC 1708 (TCC) ...........................................97
Harrington(PC) Contractors Ltd v Systech International Ltd [2012] EWCA 1371 ..............128
Harris Calnan Construction Co Ltd v Ridgewood (Kensington) Ltd [2007] EWHC 2738,
[2008] BLR 132 ....................................................................................151, 177, 190
Hart Investments Limited v Fidler [2006] EWHC 2857 (TCC); [2007] BLR 30 .......... 23, 44,
75, 117, 119, 164, 165
Harvey v Crawley Development Corporation [1956] 1 QB 485 ..........................................320
Hebburn Ltd, Ex parte; Re Kearsley Shire Council(1947) 47 SR (NSW) 416 ......................221
Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 ......................................................................90
Henry Boot Construction Ltd v Alstom Combined Cycles Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 814;
[2005] 1 WLR 3850, 3861 ....................................................................................321
Herbosh-Kiere Marine Contractors Ltd v Dover Harbour Board [2012] EWHC 84 (TCC) ...105
Herschel Engineering Ltd v Breen Property Ltd [2000] BLR 272 .........................................61
Herschel Engineering Ltd v Breen Property Ltd (No. 2), unreported, 28th July 2000 ...........189
Heyman v Darwins 1942] AC 356 ...................................................................................45
Hickory Developments Pty Ltd v Schiavello (Vic) Pty Ltd [2009] VSC 156 ................213, 229,
230
Highlands & Islands Airports Ltd v Shetland Islands Council [2012] ScotCS CSOH 12......107
Hillcrest Homes Ltd v Beresford and Curbishley Ltd [2014] EWHC 280 (TCC) .......... 56, 103,
130, 163
Homer Burgess Ltd v Chirex (Annan) Ltd [2000] BLR 124 ...............................................18
Horne v Magna Design Building Ltd [2014] EWHC 3380 (TCC) ...................................111
Hortimax v Hedon Salads Ltd (2004) 24 Const. LJ 47 .........................................16, 19, 177
How Engineering Services Ltd v Lindner Ceilings Floors Partitions plc (1999) 64 Con LR
66 ................................................................................................................ 100, 165
Humes Buildings Contractors Ltd v Charlotte Homes (Surrey) Ltd, 4 January 2007, Salford
TCC ....................................................................................................................114
Hurley Palmer Flatt Ltd v Barclays Bank Plc [2014] EWHC 3042 .....................................43
Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd v Carillion Construction Ltd [2011] EWHC 1810 (TCC),
(2011) 138 Con LR 212 ............................................................................... 175, 202
IDE Contracting Ltd v R.G. Carter Cambridge Ltd [2004] EWHC 36 (TCC), [2004]
BLR 172 .......................................................................................................... 65, 68
ISG Construction Ltd v Seevic College [2014] EWHC 4007 (TCC) ..................313, 314, 315
ISG Retail Ltd v Castletech Construction Ltd [2015] EWHC 1443 (TCC) ..........................56
Imtech Inviron Ltd v Loppingdale Plant Ltd [2014] EWHC 4109 (TCC)..........................190
Integrated Building Services Engineering Consultants Ltd v PIHL UK Ltd [2010] CSOH
80, [2010] BLR 622 .............................................................................................161
Intero Hospitality Projects Pty Ltd v Empire Interior Pty Ltd [2007] QSC 220 ............ 231, 233
xxvi
TABLE OF CASES
Interserve Industrial Services Ltd v Cleveland Bridge (UK) Ltd [2006] EWHC 741 ........... 173,
190, 314, 315
Investors Compensation Scheme v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896 .........164
J.B. Leadbitter & Co. Ltd v Hygrove Holdings Ltd [2012] EWHC 1941 (TCC) ................317
JFC Builders Pte Ltd v Lion City Construction Co Pte Ltd [2012] SGHC 243 ....................257
J.R.L., In re, Ex parte CJ.L. (1986) 161 C.L.R. 342 .........................................................83
Jaques v Ensign Contractors Ltd [2009] EWHC 3383 (TCC) ..........................................108
Jim Ennis Construction Ltd v Premier Asphalt Ltd [2009] EWHC 1906 (2009) 125 Con
LR 141 (TCC) ............................................................................................. 141, 209
John Cothliff Ltd v Allenbuild (North West) Ltdl [1999] C.I.L.L 1530 ...............................134
John Goss Projects Pty Ltd v Leighton Contractors (2006) 66 NSWLR 707 ........................222
John Holland Pty Ltd v Roads & Traffic Authority of New South Wales [2007] NSWCA
19 ................................................................................................................ 220, 221
John Mowlem v Hydra-Tight Ltd (2002) 17 Const L.J 358.....................................31, 33, 59
John Roberts Architects Ltd v Park Care Homes Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 64, [2006] BLR
106 ........................................................................................................................87
Johnson v Gore Wood & Co (a firm) [2002] 2 AC 1, H.L.(E.)............................................90
Joinery Plus Ltd v Laing Ltd [2003] EWHC 3513; [2003] BLR 184 ......................... 41, 166
K & J Burns Electrical Pty Ltd v GRD Group (NT) Pty Ltd [2011] NTCA 1, (2011) 29
NTLR 1...............................................................................................................240
KNN Coburn LLP v G.D. City Holdings Ltd [2013] EWHC 2879 (TCC) ..........77, 111, 115
KNS Industrial Services (Birmingham) Ltdv Sindall [2000] EWHC 75 (TCC), (2000)
75 Con LR 71 ...................................................................... 52, 78, 86, 112, 166, 184
Kariiti Ltd v Donovan Drainage & Earthmoving Ltd CIV-2010-488-000613, 15
November 2010....................................................................................................254
Ken Griffin & Anor t/a K & D Contractors v Midas Homes Ltd (2000) 78 Con LR 152...... 47,
50, 57, 130
Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission [2010] HCA 1 ............................................ 223, 237
Laker Vent Engineering Ltd v Jacobs E & C Ltd [2014] EWHC 1058 (TCC) .... 16, 32, 33, 70,
118, 164, 180, 183
Lanes Group Plc v Galliford Try Infrastructure Ltd [2011] EWHC 1035 (TCC), [2011]
BLR 438 ................................................................................................................75
Lanes Group Plc v Galliford Try Infrastructure Ltd (No. 2) [2011] EWHC 1679 (TCC) ......76
Lanes Group Plc v Galliford Try Infrastructure Ltd (No. 3) [2011] EWCA Civ 1617,
[2012] BLR 121 ........................................................................................75, 76, 110
Lansky Constructions Pty Ltd v Noxequin Pty Ltd (in liq) t/a Fyna Formwork [2005]
NSWSC 963 ........................................................................................................220
Leadbitter (J.B.) & Co. Ltd v Hygrove Holdings Ltd [2012] EWHC 1941 (TCC) .............317
Lead Technical Services Ltd v CMC Medical Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 316, [2007] BLR
251 ................................................................................................................ 69, 158
Leander Construction Ltd v Mullaley & Co Ltd [2011] EWHC 3449 (TCC) ....................312
Lee v Chartered Pties. (Building) Ltd [2010] EWHC 1540 (TCC), [2010] BLR 500 .. 117, 120
Lee Wee Lick Terence (alias Li Weili Terence) v Chua Say Eng (formerly trading as Weng Fatt
Construction Engineering) [2012] SGCA 63, [2013] 1 SLR 401 ........ 257, 258, 259, 261
Lend Lease Building Contractors Pty Ltd t/a Sitzler Baulderstone Joint Venture v Honeywell
Ltd t/a Honeywell Building Solutions Ltd [2015] NTSC 10 .......................................240
Letchworth Roofing Co. Ltd v Sterling Building Co. Ltd [2009] EWHC 1119 (TCC) ..........115
Levolux AT Ltd v Ferson Contractors Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 11, [2003] BLR 118 ............108
Lidl UK GmbH v R G Carter Colchester Ltd [2012] EWHC 3138 (TCC), (2012) 146
Con LR 133 .........................................................................................................186
xxvii
TABLE OF CASES
Linnett v Halliwells LLP [2009] EWHC 319 (TCC) ....................................... 70, 71, 72, 73
Lissenden v CAV Bosch Ltd [1940] AC 412, HL .............................................................144
Locabail (U.K.) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd [2000] Q.B. 451 .................................... 81, 96
London & Amsterdam Properties Ltd v Waterman Partnership Ltd [2003] EWHC 3059
(TCC), [2004] BLR 179 .........................................................................79, 104, 163
London Borough of Camden, Mayor Burgesses of, v Makers UK Ltd [2009] EWHC 605
(TCC) ...................................................................................................................61
Lovell Projects Ltd v Legg and Carver [2003] 1 BLR 452 ............................................. 34, 47
Lucas Stuart Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Sydney [2005] NSWSC 840 .........................232
MBE Electrical Contractors Ltd v Honeywell Control Systems Ltd[2010] EWHC 2244
(TCC), [2010] BLR 561 ......................................................................................144
M J Gleeson Group Plc v Devonshire Green Holding Ltd TCC Salford District Registry,
19 March 2004.....................................................................................................172
MRCN Pty Ltd t/a Westforce Constructions v ABB Australia Pty Ltd [2014] WASAT 59 ......237
MS Fashions v BCCI [1993] 1 Ch 425 ............................................................................43
Mw High Tech Projects UK Ltd v Haase Environmental Consulting GmbH [2015] EWHC
152 [35](TCC) ....................................................................................................202
McAlpine PPS Pipeline Systems Joint Venture. v Transco plc [2004] EWHC 2030 (TCC),
[2004] BLR 352 ...................................................................................................104
McConnell Dowell Construction (Aust) Pty Ltd v National Grid Gas plc [2006] EWHC
2551 (TCC), [2007] BLR, 92 ....................................................................5, 163, 189
Machkevitch v Andrew Building Constructions [2012] NSWC 546....................................216
Macob Civil Engineering Ltd v Morrison Construction Ltd [1999] BLR 93......................xxxiii,
4, 142, 143, 144, 145
Makers UK Ltd v London Borough of Camden [2008] EWHC 1836 (TCC), [2008] BLR
470 ........................................................................................................................97
Mayor & Burgesses of London Borough of Camden v Makers UK Ltd [2009] EWHC 605
(TCC) ...................................................................................................................61
Mead General Building Ltd v Dartmoor Properties Ltd [2009] EWHC 200 (TCC), [2009]
BLR 225 ..............................................................................................................188
Mecright Ltd v TA Morris Developments Ltd [2001] Adj LR 06/22 ......................................79
Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No 2), in re [2001] 1 WLR 701 para 37, C.A.....95
Melville Dundas Limited (in receivership) and others (Respondents) v George Wimpey UK
Limited and others (Appellants) (Scotland) [2007] UKHL 18, [2007] 1 WLR 136,
[2007] 3 All E.R. 889, [2007] BLR 257 ............................................................. 2, 316
Mentmore Towers Ltd & Ors. v Packman Lucas Ltd [2010] EWHC 457 (TCC).................203
Michael Ebbott t/a South Coast Scaffolding & Rigging Services v Hire Access Pty Ltd [2012]
WADC 66 ............................................................................................................238
Midland Expressway Ltd v Carillion Construction Ltd (No. 2) [2005] EWHC 2963
(TCC); (2005) 106 Con LR 154 ....................................................................... 33, 59
Midland Expressway Ltd v Carillion Construction Ltd (No.3) [2006] EWHC 1505
(TCC), [2006] BLR 325 ................................................................................xxxi, 49
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 ...........222
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Re; ex parte Lam (2003) 214 CLR 1......222
Mitsui Babcock Energy Services Ltd, In the petition of [2001] Scot CS 150 ..........................15
Model v Steel (1841) 8 M & W 858 ..............................................................................xxxii
Modern Engineering (Bristol) Ltd v Gilbert-Ash (Northern) Ltd (1973) 71 L.G.R. 162,
C.A............................................................................................................ xxxvi, 191
Modern Engineering (Bristol) Ltd v Gilbert-Ash (Northern) Ltd [1974] A.C. 689, H.L
(E.) .................................................................................................................xxxii, 3
xxviii
TABLE OF CASES
Mohammed v Bowles [2003] Adj. L.R. 03/14; [2002] 394 SD 2002 ................................146
Monmouthshire C.C. v Costelloe & Kemple Ltd (1965) 5 BLR 83 ............................46, 49, 50
Mott MacDonald Ltd v London & Regional Properties Ltd [2007] EWHC 1055 (TCC),
(2007) 113 Con LR 32 .................................................................... 26, 117, 120, 127
Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd v Luikens [2003] NSWSC 1140 .....................................220
Musico v Davenport [2003] NSWSC 977 ......................................................................222
Nageh v Richard Giddings [2006] EWHC 3240 (TCC), [2007] CILL 2420 ......................66
NAP Anglia Ltd v Sun-Land Development Co Ltd (No. 2) [2012] EWHC 51 (TCC) ........195
Nefiko Pty Ltd v Statewide Form Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 840 ..............................223
Nickelby FM Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2010] EWHC 1976 (TCC) .............................157
Nikko Hotels (UK) Ltd v MEPC plc [1991] 2 EGLR 103 ...............................................167
Nordot Engineering Services Ltd v Siemens Plc [2001] CILL 1778 ....................................178
North Midland Construction plc v A E & E Lentjes UK Ltd [2009] EWHC 1371 (TCC) .....14
Northern Developments (Cumbria) Ltd v J & J Nichol [2000] BLR 158 ............135, 168, 176
Nottingham Community Housing Association Ltd v Powerminster Ltd [2000] BLR 309 ............9
Nutton v Wilson (1889) 22 Q.B.D. 744 ............................................................................80
OSC Building Services Ltd v Interior Dimensions Contracts Ltd [2009] EWHC 248
(TCC), [2009] CILL 2688 .....................................................................................58
Oakley v Airclear Environmental [2002] C.I.L.L. 1824 ...................................................146
O’Donnell Developments Ltd v Build Ability Ltd [2009] EWHC 3388 (TCC) ...................138
O’Donnell Griffin Pty Ltd v John Holland Pty Ltd [2008] WASC 58 .................................238
Okaroo Pty Ltd v Vos Construction and Joinery Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 45 .......................216
Orange EBS Ltd v ABB Ltd [2003] 1 BLR 323 ...............................................................47
Outwing Construction Ltd v H. Randell & Son Ltd [1999] BLR 156 .................................152
PHD Modular Services Ltd v Seele GmbH [2011] EWHC 2210 (TCC) ...........................204
PT Building Services Ltd v ROK Build Ltd [2008] EWHC 3434 (TCC) ...............24, 77. 183
Paice v Harding Contractors (t/a M J Harding Contractors [2015] EWHC 661
(TCC) ...................................................................................................................69
Palmac Contracting Ltd v Park Lane Estates Ltd [2005] EWHC 919 (TCC), [2005] BLR
301 ........................................................................................................................64
Palmers Ltd v ABB Power Construction Ltd (1999) 68 Con LR 52........................................8
Paramount Airways, Re [1990] B.C.C. 130.......................................................................40
Parkwood Leisure Ltd v Laing O’Rourke Wales & West Ltd [2013] EWHC 2665 (TCC) .......12
Parsons Plastics (Research and Development) Ltd v Purac Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 459,
[2002]BLR 334 ....................................................................................................171
Partner Projects Ltd v Corinthian Nominees Ltd [2011] EWHC 2989 (TCC), [2012]
BLR 97 ................................................................................................................131
Pegram Shopfitters Ltd v Tully Weijl (UK) Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 1750, [2004] BLR 65 ... 3, 4,
34, 70, 142
Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593 ................................................................................... 14, 59
Picardi v Cuniberti [2002] EWHC 2923 (TCC);[2003] 1 BLR 487 ..................................34
Pilon Ltd v Breyer Group Ltd [2010] EWHC 837 (TCC), [2010] BLR 452 ............. 110, 113
Pines Living Pty Ltd v O’Brien & Walter Construction Pty Ltd [2013] ACTSC 156 .... 241, 242
Pioneer Cladding Ltd v John Graham Construction Ltd [2013] EWHC 2954 (TCC)............34
Piper Double Glazing v DC Contracts [1994] 1 All ER 177 ..............................................195
Porter v Magill [2002] 2 A.C. 357 ...................................................................................81
Premium Nafta Products Ltd v Fili Shipping Co. Ltd (‘TheFiona Trust’) [2007] UKHL
40 .................................................................................................................. 55, 163
President of India v La Pintada Cia Navegacion SA [1985] A.C. 104 ................................133
Primus Build Ltd v Pompey Centre Ltd [2009] EWHC 1487 (TCC), [2009] BLR 437......103
xxix
TABLE OF CASES
Pring & St. Hill Ltd v C.J. Hafner (t/a Southern Erectors) [2002] EWHC 1775 (TCC),
(2004) 20 Const. LJ 402 .........................................................................................53
Project Consultancy Group v Trustees of the Gray Trust [1999] BLR 337 ..............153, 157, 177
Quarmby Construction Co. Ltd v Larraby Land Ltd [2003] Adj. C.S. 04/14 ..........................5
Quartzelec Ltd v Honeywood Control Systems Ltd [2008] EWHC 3315 (TCC) ......... 113, 169
Quietfield Ltd v Vascroft Construction Ltd [2006] EWHC 174 (TCC), [2007] BLR
67 ...........................................................................................................88, 140, 164
R. (Factortame) v Secretary of State for Transport [2003] BLR 1 .......................................195
R. (Mount Cook Land Ltd) v Westminster City Council [2003] ECWA Civ 1346 ...............197
R & C Electrical Engineers Ltd v Shaylor Construction Ltd [2012] EWHC 1254 (TCC),
[2012] BLR 373 ...................................................................................................175
R & S Fire & Security Services Ltd v Fire Defence Plc [2012] EWHC 4222 (Ch), [2013]
BLR 500 ..............................................................................................................313
R. G. Carter Ltd v Edmund Nuttall Ltd, 21st June 2000, unreported ............................ 33, 59
R J Neller Building Pty Ltd v Ainsworth [2008] QCA 397, [2009] Qd LR 390..................232
RJT Consulting Engineers Ltd v DM Engineering (N.I.) Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 270,
[2002] 1 WLR 2344 ............................................................... 3, 23, 45, 270, 271, 275
RSL (South West) Ltd v Stansell Ltd [2003] EWHC 1390 (TCC), [2003] CILL 2012 .....102
Rail Corporation NSW v Nebax Constructions [2012] NSWSC 6 .....................................225
Rainford House Ltd v Cadogan Ltd, [2001] BLR 416 .............................................. 160, 189
Redwing Construction Ltd v Wishart [2011] EWHC 19 (TCC) ........................................194
Redworth Construction Ltd v Brookdale Healthcare Ltd [2006] EWHC 1994 (TCC),
[2006] BLR 366 ...................................................................................................157
Reg. v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex parte Pinochet Ungarte (No. 2)
[2000] 1 A.C. 119 ..................................................................................................81
Re Graham Anstee-Brooke, ex parte Karara Mining Ltd [2013] WASC 59 .........................236
Reiby Street Apartments Pty Ltd v Winterton Constructions Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 375 .....220
Reid Minty v Taylor [2002] 1 WLR 2800, C.A................................................................190
Rhode (M) Construction v Markham-David [2006] EWHC 814 (TCC) ............................66
Rhode v Markham-David (No 2) [2007] EWHC 1408 (TCC) ................................... 58, 66
Ridgeway Constructions Ltd v Tolent Construction Ltd [2000] CILL 1662 ..........................271
Riley v the State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 190 ................................................236
Ringway Infrastructure Services Ltd v Vauxhall Motors Ltd (N0. 2) [2007] EWHC 2507
(TCC) ......................................................................................................... 141, 187
Ritchie Brothers (PWC) Ltd v David Philp (Commercials) Ltd[ 2005] BLR 384 ................. 31,
75, 117, 165
River Plate Products NL BV v Etablissement Coargrain [1982] Lloyds LR 628 ..................122
Roadtek, Department of Main Roads v Davenport & Ors [2006] QSC 47 ..........................232
Roe Brickwork Ltd v Wates Construction Ltd [2013] EWHC 3417 (TCC) .........................154
Rodgers Contracts (Ballynahinch) Ltd v Merex Construction Limited [2012] NIQB 94 ........189
Rok Building Ltd v Bestwood Carpentry Ltd[2010] EWHC 1409 (TCC) ............................24
Rok Building Ltd v Celtic Composting Systems Ltd (No.1) [2009] EWHC 2664 (TCC),
130 Con LR 61 ....................................................................................................124
Rok Building Ltd v Celtic Composting Systems Ltd (No. 2) [2010] EWHC 66 (TCC), 130
Con LR 74 .............................................................................................................24
Rupert Morgan Building Services (LLC) Limited v Jervis [2003] EWCA Civ 1563,
[2004] 1 WLR 1867 ..............................................................................312, 314, 315
Ruttle Plant Hire Ltd v Secretary of State for Environment Food & Rural Affairs (No 3)
[2009] EWCA 97 Civ ...........................................................................................201
SGL Carbon Fibres Ltd v RBG Ltd [2011] Scot CSOH 62 (Lord Glennie) .....................104
xxx
TABLE OF CASES
SG South Ltd v Kings Head Cirencester LLP [2009] EWHC 2645 (TCC), [2010] BLR
47 .................................................................................................................. 26, 155
SG South Ltd v Swan Yard (Cirencester) Ltd [2010] EWHC 376 (TCC) ............................26
St. Andrews Bay Development Ltd v HBG Management Ltd [2003] Scot CS 103 .............. 117,
120, 127, 165
Samuel Thomas Construction Ltd v Bick & Bick (t/a J & B Developments), unreported,
Exeter County Court, 28 January 2000 ...................................................................20
Saunders, In re, (A Bankrupt) [1997] Ch. 60..................................................................162
Savoye & Savoye Ltd v Spicers Ltd [2014] EWHC 4195 (TCC) ................................. 10, 11
Savoye & Savoye Ltd v Spicers Ltd (No 2) [2015] EWHC 33 (TCC) ..............................196
Seabreeze Manly v Toposu [2014] NSWC 1097 ..............................................................216
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Frid [2004] 2 AC 506 ........................................43
Shaw v Massey Foundation & Pilings Ltd [2009] EWHC 493 ................................... 21, 144
Shepherd Construction Ltd v Mecright Ltd [2000] BLR 489 ........................................... 5, 54
Shell Refining (Australia) Pty Ltd v AJ Mayr Engineering [2006] NSWSC 94...................232
Shimizu Europe Ltd v Automajor Ltd [2002] EWHC 1571 (TCC), [2002] BLR 122 ........167
185
Shin Khai Construction Pte Ltd v FL Wong Construction Pte Ltd [2013] SGHCR 4 ............258
Silent Vector Pty Ltd t/a Sizer Builders v Squarcini [2008] WASAR 39.................234, 235, 237
Simons Construction Ltd v Aardvark Developments Ltd [2003] EWHC 2474 (TCC),
[2004] BLR 117 ...................................................................................................118
Sindall Ltd v Solland & Ors (2001) 80 Con LR 152................................................... 47, 50
Skilltech Consulting Services Pty Ltd v Bold NVision Pty Ltd [2013] TASCC 3 ..................247
Solland International Ltd v Daraydan Holdings Ltd [2002] EWHC 220 (TCC); 83 Con
LR 109 ................................................................................................................171
Spark It Up Ltd v Dimac Contractors Ltd HC AK CIV-2008-485-1706 .................... 253, 254
Specialist Ceiling Services Ltd v ZVI Construction (UK) Ltd [2004] BLR, 403 ...................100
Speymill Contracts Ltd v Baskind [2010] EWCA Civ 120, [2010] BLR 257 .....................155
Sprunt Ltd v London Borough of Camden [2011] EWHC 3191 (TCC) ..............................68
Squibb Group Ltd v Vertase FLI Ltd [2012] EWHC 1958 (TCC), [2012] BLR 408 ..........175
Steffanutti Stocks (Pty) Ltd v SB (Pty) Ltd (2088/2013) [2013] ZAGPJHC 24 ................307
Stein v Blake [1996] A.C. 243 H.L. (E.) ............................................................42, 43, 159
Strathmore Building Services Ltd v Greig [2000] ScotsCS 133, 17 Const. LJ 72 ................312
Straume, A., (U.K.) Ltd v Bradlor Developments Ltd [2001] TCLR 409, [2000] B.C.C.
333 .................................................................................................................. 40, 41
Straw Realisations (No 1) Ltd (formerly known as Haymills (Contractors) Ltd (in
administration)) v Shaftsbury House (Developments) Ltd [2010] EWHC 2597 (TCC),
[2011] BLR 47.............................................................................................. 161, 189
Supablast (Nationwide) Ltd v Story Rail Ltd [2010] EWHC 56 (TCC), [2010] BLR 211 ....6
Sykes, (F. & G.), (Wessex) Ltd v Fine Fare Ltd [1967] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 53 ............................46
Tayler v LaHatte HC AK CIV-404-6843 .......................................................................253
Testro Bros. Consolidated Ltd, In re. [1965] VR. 18 ...........................................................162
Thameside Construction Co. Ltd v Stevens [2013] EWHC 2071 (TCC) ............................175
Thermal Energy Construction Ltd v A E & E Lentjes UK Ltd [2009] EWHC 408
(TCC) ..................................................................................................114, 122, 169
Thiess Pty Ltd v MCC Mining (WA) Pty Ltd [2011] WASC 80........................................237
Thiess Pty Ltd v Warren Brothers Earthmoving Pty Ltd [2012] QCA 276 ...........................231
Thomas Vale Construction v Brookside Syston Ltd [2006] EWHC 3637..............................312
Thomas-Fredric’s (Construction) Ltd v Wilson [2003] EWCA Civ 1494, [2004] BLR 23.......3,
66, 158, 178
xxxi
TABLE OF CASES
xxxii
TABLE OF CASES
Westshield Ltd v Whitehouse [2013] EWHC 3576 (TCC), [2014] CILL 3457 ............ 43, 160
Whiteways Contractors (Sussex) Ltd v Impresa Castelli Construction UK Ltd (2000) 75
Con LR 92 ...........................................................................................................177
Whyte & Mackay Ltd vv Blyth & Blyth Consulting Engineers Ltd [2013] CSOH 54 .... 39, 122
William Hare Ltd v Shepherd Construction Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 283, [2010] BLR
358 ......................................................................................................................270
William Verry (Glazing Systems) Ltd v Furlong Homes Ltd [2005] EWHC 138 (TCC) ........63
William Verry Ltd v The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Camden [2006]
EWHC 761 (TCC) ..............................................................................................172
William Verry Ltd v North West London Communal Mikvah [2004] EWHC 1300 (TCC),
[2004] BLR 308 .....................................................................................................76
Willis Trust Co Ltd v Green HC AK CIV-2006-404-809 [2006] NZHC 571 3 ..250, 252, 253
Willmott Dixon Housing Ltd v Newlon Housing Trust [2013] EWHC 798 (TCC), [2013]
BLR 325 ................................................................................................................53
Wimbledon Construction Co 2000 Ltd v Derek Vago [2005] EWHC 1086 (TCC), [2005]
BLR 374 ..............................................................................................................188
Windglass Windows Ltd v Capital Skyline Ltd [2009] EWHC 2022 (TCC).......................312
Witham v Raminea Pty Ltd [2012] WADC 1..................................................................238
Witney Town Council v Beam Construction (Cheltenham) Ltd [2011] EWHC 2332
(TCC), [2011] BLR 707 ........................................................................................53
Woods Hardwick Ltd v Chiltern Air-Conditioning Ltd [2001] BLR 23.......................... 98, 165
Working Environments Ltd v Greencoat Construction Ltd [2012] EWHC 1039 (TCC) .......194
WW Gear Construction Ltd V McGee Group Ltd [2012] 1509 (TCC), [2012] BLR 355 ....200
YCMS Ltd, v Grabiner [2009] EWHC 127 (TCC), [2009] BLR 211 .............................137
Yuanda (UK) Co. Ltd v WW Gear Construction Ltd [2010] EWHC 720 (TCC), [2010]
BLR 435 ...................................................................................32, 33, 133, 135, 271
Yule, A.C., & Son Ltd v Speedwell Roofing & Cladding Ltd [2007] EWHC 1360 (TCC),
[2007] BLR 499 ...................................................................................................115
xxxiii
This page has been left blank intentionally
TABL E OF STATUTES
Arbitration Act 1996 .............. 46, 110, 133, Contracts (Rights of Third Parties)
269, 279 Act 1999
s 7 ...................................................... 55 s 1(4) ......................................43, 45, 46
s 9 .............................................144, 152 s 8 ................................................ 43, 46
s 14 .............................................. 56, 57 s 8(1) ................................................. 46
s 28(1) ............................................... 72 s 8(2) ................................................. 46
s 29 .................................................. 271
s 42 .................................xxxiii, 145, 287 Education Act 1996
s 57 .................................................. 136 s 31 .................................................... 28
s 68(2)(f) .......................................... 122 Employment Rights Act 1996 ................. 20
s 73 .................................................. 179 Enterprise Act 2002 ............................. 270
s 248(4)............................................ 317
Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971.. 62 s 277 ................................................ 317
Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 Sch 16 .............................................. 317
s 12 .................................................. 317 Exchequer and Audit Departments
Act 1866 ......................................... 27
Construction Contracts Act 2004
(Isle of Man) ............................. 4, 210 Highways Act 1980
Construction Contracts Act 2013 s 278 .................................................. 27
(Republic of Ireland) s 38 .................................................... 27
s 1(1) ............................................... 210 Housing Grants, Construction and
s 1(2) ............................................... 210 Regeneration Act 1996 ................xxxi,
s 2(1) ............................................... 210 xxxii, 15, 20, 21, 24, 31, 32, 61,
s 2(3) ............................................... 210 63, 80, 110, 114, 118–121, 130,
s 3(3) ............................................... 210 134–137, 141, 144, 147, 151, 154,
s 3(4) ............................................... 211 159, 188, 190–191, 202–203, 210,
s 3(5) ............................................... 211 267–269, 272, 276–279, 283, 290–
s 6(1) ............................................... 211 291, 294, 315
s 6(11) ............................................. 211 Part II ..............1, 1–5, 11, 17, 20, 22, 25,
s 6(3)–(4) ......................................... 211 26, 27, 29, 30, 44, 45, 48, 54, 56,
s 6(8) ............................................... 211 62, 84, 86, 120, 127, 140, 157, 163,
s 7(1) ............................................... 211 275, 284, 288, 312
s 8(2) ............................................... 211 s 104 ..................................... 13, 44, 157
s 8(3) ............................................... 211 s 104(1)...................................5, 45, 156
s 12 .................................................. 210 s 104(1)(b) ......................................... 20
Construction Contracts s 104(2)................................. 5, 7, 19, 45
(Amendment) Act (NI) 2011 .............4 s 104(2)(a) ................................... 19, 20
s 9 ........................................................4 s 104(2)(b) ......................................... 19
xxxv
TABLE OF STATUTES
xxxvi
TABLE OF STATUTES
xxxvii
TABLE OF STATUTES
xxxviii
TABLE OF S TAT UTORY INSTRUM ENTS
Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (SI 1998 Construction Contracts (2011 Act)
No 3132) ...............................194, 205 (Commencement) Order (Northern
Part 1 ............................................... 154 Ireland) (SR 2012 No 367 (C 34))
r 1.1 ................................................. 198 para 2 ........................................... 4, 284
Part 6 Construction Contracts Act 2013
r 6.19(1)(b) ...................................... 150 (Code of Practice) (Adjudication)
Part 7 ............................................... 147 Order 2014 (SI 2014 No XXX) ..... 211
Part 8 ............................... 147, 150, 199, Construction Contracts (England and
201 Wales) Exclusion Order 1998 (SI
Part 23 1998 No 648)
PD 23, para 6.5 .................................. 98 art 3 ................................................... 27
Part 24 ......................................148, 193 art 4(1)............................................... 27
r 24.2 ........................................159, 178 art 4(2)............................................... 27
Part 31 art 4(2)(a) .......................................... 27
r 31.16 ............................................. 203 art 4(2)(b) .......................................... 27
Part 44 art 4(2)(c) .......................................... 28
r 44.4 ............................................... 195 art 5(1)............................................... 28
r 44.4(3) ........................................... 195 art 5(2)............................................... 28
Part 45 ......................................192, 193 art 6(1)............................................... 29
r 45.1 ............................................... 192 art 6(2)............................................... 29
r 45.2(b) ........................................... 192 art 6(3)............................................... 29
r 45.3 ............................................... 192 para 4 ............................................... 270
Part 60 Construction Contracts Exclusion
PD 60, para 2.1 ................................ 147 (England) Order 2011 (SI 2011
PD 60, para 3.2 ................................ 148 No 2332)
PD 60, para 3.3 ................................ 147 arts 3–4 ...................................... 28, 284
PD 60, para 3.4 ................................ 147 Construction Contracts Exclusion
Part 70 ............................................. 196 Order (Northern Ireland) 1999
Part 73 (SR 1999 No 33)...............................4
r 73.1(1) ........................................... 197 Construction Contracts Exclusion
r 73.3(2) ........................................... 197 Order (Northern Ireland) 2012
r 73.4(1) ........................................... 197 (SR 2012 No 366) .............................4
r 73.4(2) ........................................... 197 Construction Contracts (Northern
r 73.8(2) ........................................... 197 Ireland) Order 1997 (1997 No
r 73.10(1) ......................................... 197 274 (NI 1) ........................................4
r 73.10(2) ......................................... 197 Construction Contracts (Scotland)
PD 73, para 4.2 ................................ 197 Exclusion Order 1998 (SI 1998
No 686 (S33))...................................3
xxxix
TABLE OF STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
xl
TABLE OF STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
para 25 .................. 124, 125, 128, 278, 287 reg 3(13) .......................................... 287
para 26 ......................................... 129 Scheme for Construction Contracts
Schedule, Part II (England and Wales) Regulations
para 2(2) ....................................... 318 1998 (Amendment) (Wales)
para 2(3) ....................................... 318 Regulations 2011 (SI 2011 No
para 2(4) ....................................... 318 1715 (W 194)) .......................318, 319
para 4 ........................................... 318 Scheme for Construction Contracts in
para 5 ........................................... 318 Northern Ireland (Amendment)
para 6 ........................................... 318 Regulations (Northern Ireland)
para 7 ........................................... 318 2012 (SR 2012 No 365) ....................4
para 8 ........................................... 318 Scheme for Construction Contracts
para 9(1), (2) ................................ 319 in Northern Ireland Regulations
para 9(4) ....................................... 319 (Northern Ireland) 1999 (SR
para 10 ......................................... 319 1999 No 32) .....................................4
para 11 ......................................... 319 Scheme for Construction Contracts
para 12 ......................................... 318 (Scotland) Amendment
Scheme for Construction Contracts Regulations 2011 (SSI 2011 No
(England and Wales) Regulations 371) ..................................................3
1998 (Amendment) (England) Scheme for Construction Contracts
Regulations 2011 (SI 2011 No (Scotland) Regulations 1998 (SI
2333) .......... 76, 84, 116, 285, 318, 319 1998 687 (S34)) ................................3
reg 1 ................................................. 285
reg 3(2) ............................................ 285 Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts
reg 3(3) ............................................ 285 Regulations 1994 (SI 1994 No3159)
reg 3(4) ............................................ 286 reg 4(1) .............................................. 35
reg 3(5) ............................................ 286 reg 5(1) .............................................. 35
reg 3(6) ............................................ 286 Sch 2 .................................................. 35
reg 3(7) ............................................ 286 Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts
reg 3(8) ............................................ 286 Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No
reg 3(9) ............................................ 286 2083)
reg 3(10) ...................................138, 287 reg 5(1) ...................................34, 35, 36
reg 3(11) .......................................... 287 reg 5(2) .............................................. 36
reg 3(12) .......................................... 287 reg 6(1) .............................................. 34
xli
This page has been left blank intentionally
Introduction – the adjudication process
‘Adjudication should not become a game of chess in which the tactical skill of the players deter-
mines the outcome.’
Jackson J, Midland Expressway Ltd v Carillion Construction Ltd (No 3)1
xliii
INTRODUCTION
by the legislation. Under that regime, which is implied into contracts not containing
compliant provisions, the paying party is obliged to make periodic payment of sums
certified by a contract administrator or notified by the receiving party.
xliv
INTRODUCTION
Challenge procedures
The legislation conferred no right of appeal on an unsuccessful party to an adjudi-
cation. There would, however, inevitably be circumstances where the court would
need to intervene, most particularly in relation to jurisdiction and natural justice.
The question was whether this would be achieved by judicial review or in some
other way. Perhaps surprisingly, judicial review never seems to have been seriously
raised as an option and the courts have been content to proceed on the basis that
challenges can be raised by way of defence to summary judgment applications.
This was probably a pragmatic solution: unsuccessful parties would refuse to pay
as required by the decision and successful parties would then apply for summary
judgment, at which point the court could consider the merits of the challenge.
xlv
INTRODUCTION
Errors
Everybody makes mistakes and adjudicators may well be in greater danger than
most of doing so because of the tight time limit of 28 days imposed on the adjudica-
tion process. At the same time, the courts have had to bear in mind the underly-
ing purpose of the legislation to emasculate the right of set-off. This has led to
an uncomfortable compromise, whereby adjudicators’ decisions are subject to the
same rule as expert determinations: that of the necessity of asking the right question
as opposed to the permission to give the wrong answer. This avoids the difficulties
posed by arbitration appeals where a distinction has to be made between questions
of law (right of appeal) and questions of fact (no right of appeal). It does, however,
lead to the enforcement of decisions that are wrong in either law or fact, or both.
This result has been slightly mitigated by judicial and then statutory intervention
permitting an adjudicator to correct clerical errors under the equivalent of the ‘slip
rule’ in arbitration.
Natural justice
The subordinate legislation provided that an adjudicator was obliged to act impar-
tially and a number of decisions established that the rules of natural justice applied
to adjudication. The underlying purpose of the legislation combined with the tight
timetable imposed has, however, meant that the courts have taken a robust approach
to challenges on the basis of alleged breaches of natural justice. Such breaches are
permissible if they are not ‘material’ and would have had no effect on the outcome.
Jurisdictional challenges
From the start, the courts recognised that an adjudicator could not make an effec-
tive decision if he or she had no jurisdiction to do so. Unsuccessful parties were
quick to seize the opportunity to avoid payment by employing such challenges and
were remarkably inventive in doing so. The courts have deployed various methods
xlvi
INTRODUCTION
Procedural pitfalls
Despite the stricture of Jackson LJ set out at the head of this introduction above,
there can be no escaping the fact that the adjudication process has many similarities
to chess, particularly clock chess. The parties must deploy their pieces in accord-
ance with prescribed moves within prescribed periods of time. This process begins
before the adjudication. The initial and most far-reaching move is the service of the
notice allowing a paying party to even be in the position of raising an entitlement
to a deduction from sums otherwise due. Experienced paying parties are also often
adept at avoiding a clear rejection of a claim in correspondence in order to argue
at a later stage that no dispute had arisen between the parties before service of the
notice of adjudication, thus depriving an appointed adjudicator of jurisdiction.
Then, if the notice of adjudication (provided that it has been served in accord-
ance with the statutory or contractual rules) refers to more than one dispute, the
responding party will again say that there can be no jurisdiction. Other traps for the
unwary referring party are applying for the appointment of an adjudicator before
service of the notice of adjudication or failing to serve the referral notice within the
prescribed period.
Reservation of position
As stated above, the worst excesses have been avoided by the courts’ adoption of a
sensible approach where the responding party has been inconsistent in its attitude
to the process. Thus a party that has waived a jurisdictional challenge or approbated
a decision will not be able to resist enforcement. The tactics developed to overcome
this difficulty were, first, the specific reservation of position and, subsequently, the
general reservation of position. By these means the responding party can have its
cake and eat it. The referring party may press on in the hope that there is no valid
challenge, but the courts have recognised a right to withdraw a claim, of which the
party may wish to avail itself.
Post-decision challenges
An unsuccessful party can wait to raise a challenge on jurisdictional or other grounds
in enforcement proceedings by the successful party. Another option is to seek a swift
decision in litigation. The TCC can deal with such applications at short notice and
is also willing to deal with substantive points of law ruled upon by an adjudicator
if they can be dealt with quickly. This often permits enforcement or revision of the
adjudicator’s decision to be dealt with at the same time.
xlvii
INTRODUCTION
Conclusion
Nobody would argue with the proposition that cash flow in the construction industry
is, in the vivid phrase of Lord Denning MR, ‘the very lifeblood of the enterprise’.7
The adjudication experience has proved just how vital it is, to paying as well as
receiving parties: no procedural point, however small, has been ignored in the quest
to avoid payment for whatever reason. It is this that lies at the heart of the chal-
lenge to the process in the future. It is notable that other jurisdictions legislating
for prompt payment have incorporated appeal structures applicable to adjudication
decisions. This could go a long way towards removing the black and white squares
from adjudication.
7 Modern Engineering (Bristol) Ltd v Gilbert-Ash (Northern) Ltd 71 LGR 162, 167.
xlviii
CHAPTER 1
1.1 Definitions
1.1 Adjudication is, conventionally, the process of judging, a court’s pronouncement
of a judgment or decree, or the judgment so given.1 It has been said that a judge or
an arbitrator adjudicates and in this sense adjudication is or should therefore be
synonymous with a judicial process.2 From 1976, standard forms of construction
subcontracts began to contain provisions for an ‘adjudicator’ to decide disputes
between the subcontractor and the main contractor as to the entitlement to payment
pending a final resolution by arbitration.3 The use of such provisions was adopted
in other forms during the 1980s and, by 1992, ‘adjudication’ could be defined as a
procedure where, by contract, a summary interim decision-making power in respect
of disputes was vested in a third-party individual (the adjudicator) who was usually
not involved in the day-to day performance or administration of the contract, and
was neither an arbitrator nor connected with the state.4 A party to a construction
contract regulated by Part II of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration
Act 1996 now has the right5 to refer a dispute arising under the contract for adju-
dication under a procedure complying with the requirements of section 108 of that
Act. The word ‘adjudication’ is thus commonly used now to denote the process
whereby a decision is reached pursuant to the provisions of the Act. A fuller defini-
tion has been suggested as that of a process by which within a short and defined time,
and with a curtailed procedure left primarily to the adjudicator, all disputes under
most construction contracts have to be presented to and decided by a person who
will not be the arbitrator or the judge (unless of course the parties agree) where the
decision is binding (and is swiftly enforceable) until the dispute is considered on its
own merits by the ultimate tribunal, without regard to the decision of the adjudica-
tor, so that there is, in this sense, no appeal from the adjudicator but, until that time
arrives, there are very limited means of questioning the result of the adjudication.6
1
ADJUDICATION IN CONSTRUCTION LAW
1.2.2 Consultation
1.3 In the consultation paper it was noted that the proposals in Constructing the
Team had identified the following as essential terms in all construction contracts:
dispute resolution; right of set off; prompt payment; protection against insolvency. It
was also noted that legislation in this area could significantly restrict to some extent
the freedom of parties to contract on any terms they chose. The first point on which
the government wished to have views was whether the proposals for legislation set
out in Constructing the Team and elaborated in the consultation paper were likely to
improve contractual relations sufficiently to justify this regulatory intervention.8
7 Quoted in Melville Dundas Ltd (in receivership) v George Wimpey UK Ltd [2007] UKHL 18, [2007]
1 WLR 136, [2007] 3 All ER 889, [2007] BLR 257, [36] (Lord Hope).
8 Melville Dundas Limited (in receivership) and others (Respondents) v George Wimpey UK Limited and
others (Appellants) (Scotland) [2007] UKHL 18, [37] (Lord Hope).
2
STATUTORY REGULATION OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
acceptable, it would be the subject matter of arbitration or litigation. That was a highly
satisfactory process It came under the rubric of “pay now argue later”, which was a
sensible way of dealing expeditiously and relatively inexpensively with disputes which
might hold up the completion of important contracts.’9
The phrase ‘pay now, argue later’ has frequently been adopted as shorthand to
describe the policy of the Act.10 The Technology and Construction Court and the
Court of Appeal have also said on many occasions that adjudication is a form
of rough justice, in the sense that within a very short period of time (28 days
usually) the adjudicator has to receive submissions and evidence from the parties
and produce his or her decision; inevitably the justice that is meted out is not always
as pure and as well prepared for as cases which proceed to a full trial in court or to
a substantive hearing before an arbitrator.11
1.3 Application of Act to United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, and the
Isle of Man
3
ADJUDICATION IN CONSTRUCTION LAW
19 Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, s 149, The Construction Contracts
(Northern Ireland) Order 1997 (1997 No 274 (NI 1). The amendments brought about by the Local
Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 in England and Wales and Scotland
are reflected in the Construction Contracts (Amendment) Act (NI) 2011.
20 The Construction Contracts Exclusion Order (Northern Ireland) 1999 (SR 1999 No 33) as
amended by the Construction Contracts Exclusion Order (Northern Ireland) 2012 (SR 2012 No 366),
the Scheme for Construction Contracts in Northern Ireland Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999 (SR
1999 No 32), as amended by the Scheme for Construction Contracts in Northern Ireland (Amendment)
Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012 (SR 2012 No 365).
21 Construction Contracts (Amendment) Act (NI) 2011, s 9, The Construction Contracts (2011
Act) (Commencement) Order (Northern Ireland) (SR 2012 No 367 (C. 34), para 2.
22 Macob Civil Engineering Ltd v Morrison Construction Ltd [1999] BLR 93, 97 (Dyson J); approved in
Bouyges (UK) Ltd v Dahl-Jensen Ltd [2000] BLR 522, 524 [3], CA (Buxton LJ), and Pegram Shopfitters
Ltd v Tully Weijl (UK) Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 1750, [2004] BLR 65, 68 [8] (May LJ).
4
STATUTORY REGULATION OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
1.5.1 Introduction
1.9 At common law, a construction contract is a contract whereby one person, the
contractor, agrees to build or construct some work on behalf of some other person,
the employer, and can cover a wide range of work from minor repair for house owners
to large projects for commercial concerns or government agencies. The adjudication
provisions of Part II of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996
only apply to construction contracts as defined by that Part.23 The statutory defini-
tion includes contracts which would not normally be regarded as construction con-
tracts at common law, such as contracts of engagement for professional services to be
provided by architects or surveyors,24 and excludes contracts for construction works
to be performed at certain locations.25 Contracts with residential occupiers are also
excluded.26 The construction contract must also be in writing if governed by the una-
mended Act.27 Where parties to a construction contract have compromised a dispute
under that contract, the question of whether the compromise agreement is subject
to adjudication turns on the relationship between the construction contract and the
compromise agreement. An adjudicator will have jurisdiction where the compromise
agreement operated as a variation of the construction contract, and the compromise
agreement is not a ‘stand alone’ agreement, both agreements being subject to the
same adjudication provisions, and the adjudicator having jurisdiction to determine
the effect of the compromise agreement. On the other hand, where the compromise
agreement is a ‘stand alone’ agreement, which did not incorporate and was not
subject to any adjudication provision, the compromise agreement must be analysed in
order to determine whether there was a surviving dispute which can be adjudicated.28
Where there is no surviving dispute which can be adjudicated under the construction
contract, a dispute under the compromise agreement cannot be adjudicated because
that agreement is not a construction contract subject to Part II of the Act.29
5
ADJUDICATION IN CONSTRUCTION LAW
to which he or she has properly been appointed adjudicator. It cannot then in those
circumstances be a valid challenge to his or her jurisdiction that upon analysis he or
she may be wrong as a matter of fact or law in determining that such variations were
made to the originating contract as opposed to a series of later legally unconnected
contracts.8 It must also be borne in mind that variations, that is additional, altered,
substituted or omitted works, are very common and almost invariably feature in
payment disputes between construction contract parties. Many of the adjudication
decisions which come to be considered by the Technology and Construction Court
involve rulings on whether particular work has been varied and, if so, what price
is to be put on it. Generally, an adjudicator properly appointed under the original
contract between the parties to the adjudication will have jurisdiction to determine
whether or not particular work was or was to be treated as a variation under or
pursuant to that original contract. Of course, it is open to either party to argue that,
although the particular work was extra to the scope of works covered by the original
contract, it was not a variation envisaged or permitted by that contract. That argu-
ment will or may in effect give rise both to a substantive defence under the original
contract (‘there is no entitlement to payment because there is no variation’) as well
as a jurisdictional challenge (‘the adjudicator has no jurisdiction to decide because
the extra work can not have been ordered under the original contract which gives
the adjudicator jurisdiction in the first place’). This is where there will often be an
overlap between jurisdiction and substance.30
30 Supablast (Nationwide) Ltd v Story Rail Ltd [2010] EWHC 56 (TCC), [2010] BLR 211 [29]
(Akenhead J).
6
STATUTORY REGULATION OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
temporarily binding on the responding party, which never agreed to confer jurisdic-
tion upon him or her to decide that question.31
31 Viridis UK Ltd v Mulalley & Co Ltd [2014] EWHC 268 (TCC) [81] (HHJ Stephen Davies).
32 ‘Construction operations’ are the subject of a specific definition: Housing Grants, Construction
and Regeneration Act 1996, s 105(1).
33 Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, s 104(1).
34 Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, s 104(2).
35 Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, s 104(4).
36 Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, s 104(5).
37 Fence Gate Ltd v James R Knowles Ltd (2001) 84 Con LR 206, 210 [7] (HHJ Gilliland QC).
38 Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, s 105(1) as amended by
Communications Act 2003, s 406(1) & Sched 17, para 137.
7
ADJUDICATION IN CONSTRUCTION LAW
39 One view is that this expression is not wholly free from ambiguity: the more natural meaning is
that para (e) of s 105 (1) is not incorporating the exclusions provided by s 105(2): Palmers Ltd v ABB
Power Construction Ltd (1999) 68 Con LR 52, 62–3 [33] (HHJ Thornton QC).
40 Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, s 105(2).
41 For the meaning of ‘plant’ see 1.9.2 below.
42 The use of the word ‘is’ in qualifying primary activity is not intended to produce a distinction
between a present use and a future use which would follow the completion of operations: ABB Power
Construction Ltd v Norwest Holst Engineering Ltd (2000) 77 Con LR 20, 30 (HHJ LLoyd QC).
8
STATUTORY REGULATION OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
(e) except under a contract which also provides for their installation; the
making, installation and repair of artistic works, being sculptures, murals
and other works which are wholly artistic in nature.
The Secretary of State has the power to add to, amend or repeal these definitions
by statutory instrument after a draft order has been laid before and approved by
Parliament.43
9
ADJUDICATION IN CONSTRUCTION LAW
preparatory to, or are for rendering complete the operations relating to the landfill
cell and therefore falls under section 105(1)(e).45
45 Coleraine Skip Hire v Ecomesh Ltd [2008] NIQB 141 [14] (Weatherup J).
46 Gibson Lea Interiors Ltd v Makro Shelf Service Ltd [2001] BLR 407, 413 [15] (HHJ Seymour QC).
47 Savoye & Savoye Ltd v Spicers Ltd [2014] EWHC 4195 (TCC) [24] (Akenhead J).
48 [1997] UKHL 15, [1997] 1 WLR 687, [1997] 2 All ER 513 (Lords Lloyd & Cooke).
10
STATUTORY REGULATION OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
determined objectively and not by reference simply to what one or other party to the
contract, by which the object was brought to or installation brought about at the site,
thought or thinks. Primarily, one looks at the nature and type of object or installation
and considers how it would be or is intended to be installed and used. One needs
to consider the context, objectively established. If the object or system in question
was installed to enhance the value and utility of the premises to and in which it was
annexed, that is a strong pointer to it forming part of the land. Where machinery
or equipment is placed or installed on land or within buildings, particularly if it is
all part of one system, one should have regard to the installation as a whole, rather
than each individual element on its own. The fact that even some substantial and
heavy pieces are more readily removable than others is not in itself determinative
that the installation as a whole does not form part of the land. Machinery and plant
can be structures, works (including industrial plant) and fittings within the context
of section 105(1) paras (a) to (c) of the Act.49
1.18 Simply because something is installed in a building or structure does not
mean that it necessarily becomes a fixture or part of the land. A standing refrig-
erator or washing machine can be installed in a building but nobody, thinking
rationally, would suggest that they had become fixtures or part of the land. The
fixing with screws and bolts of an object to or within a building or structure is a
strong pointer to the object becoming a fixture and part of the land but it is not
absolutely determinative. Many of the old cases referred to above demonstrate that
such fixings did point towards the object so affixed being part of the land. However,
the Gibson Lea case50 produced a different answer, even though some items were
affixed by nails and screws. Ease of removability of the object or installation in
question is a factor which is a pointer to whether it is to be treated as not forming
part of the land. One can have regard, however, to the purpose which the object
or installation is serving, that purpose being determined objectively. The fact that
the fixing cannot be removed save by destroying or seriously damaging it or the
attachment is a pointer to what it is attaching being part of the land. A significant
degree of permanence of the object or installation can point to it being considered
as part of the land.51
49 Savoye & Savoye Ltd v Spicers Ltd [2014] EWHC 4195 (TCC) [36] (c)–(h) (Akenhead J).
50 Gibson Lea Interiors Ltd v Makro Shelf Service Ltd [2001] BLR 407, 413 (HHJ Seymour QC).
51 Savoye & Savoye Ltd v Spicers Ltd [2014] EWHC 4195 (TCC) [36] (i)–(k) (Akenhead J).
52 Baldwins Industrial Services plc v Barr Ltd [2003] BLR 176, 178 [12] (HHJ Kirkham).
53 Baldwins Industrial Services plc v Barr Ltd [2003] BLR 176, 180 [21]–[23] (HHJ Kirkham).
11
ADJUDICATION IN CONSTRUCTION LAW
54 Parkwood Leisure Ltd v Laing O’Rourke Wales & West Ltd [2013] EWHC 2665 (TCC) [27]–[28]
(Akenhead J).
12
STATUTORY REGULATION OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
be provisionally binding, would enable the parties to put the matter behind them
and get on with the work, leaving the final inquest until later, probably when the
work was completed. Relationships ought thus to be preserved or restored and the
concept of teamwork realised or saved from material damage. Adjudication could
be sought ‘at any time’ (i.e. early on) even though, as it has turned out, it is at times
not being used to resolve disputes contemporaneously but much later, even after the
time when they could have been the subject of a judgment or arbitral award. It is
clear from the wide language of sections 104 and 105(1) that Parliament wished to
ensure that these regimes would apply on every site and for every project.55
55 ABB Power Construction Ltd v Norwest Holst Engineering Ltd (2000) 77 Con LR. 20, 27–8, [13]
(HHJ LLoyd QC).
56 ABB Power Construction Ltd v Norwest Holst Engineering Ltd (2000) 77 Con LR 20, 28, [14] (HHJ
LLoyd QC).
13
ADJUDICATION IN CONSTRUCTION LAW
57 Comsite Projects Ltd v Andritz AG [2003] EWHC 958 (TCC); (2004) 20 Const. LJ 24 (HHJ
Kirkham), followed in North Midland Construction plc v A E & E Lentjes UK Ltd [2009] EWHC 1371
(TCC) [67] (Ramsey J).
58 North Midland Construction plc v A E & E Lentjes UK Ltd [2009] EWHC 1371 (TCC) [67]
(Ramsey J).
59 North Midland Construction plc v A E & E Lentjes UK Ltd [2009] EWHC 1371 (TCC) [62]–[63]
(Ramsey J).
60 Cleveland Bridge (UK) Ltd v Whessoe-Volker Stevin Joint Venture [2010] EWHC 1076 [37]–[61]
(Ramsey J).
14
STATUTORY REGULATION OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
61 ABB Zantingh Ltd v Zedal Building Services Ltd [2001] BLR 66, 72, [28] (HHJ Bowsher QC).
62 Mitsui Babcock Energy Services Ltd, In the Petition of [2001] Scot CS 150 (Lord Hardie).
15
ADJUDICATION IN CONSTRUCTION LAW
power station but one which depends on the relationship with the mill
owner.63
63 Laker Vent Engineering Ltd v Jacobs E & C Ltd [2014] EWHC 1058 (TCC) [66]–[70] (Ramsey J).
64 Hortimax v Hedon Salads Ltd (2004) 24 Const. LJ 47, 54 [20] (the decision did not turn on the
meaning of ‘plant’) (HHJ Gilliland QC).
65 ABB Power Construction Ltd v Norwest Holst Engineering Ltd (2000) 77 Con LR 20, 30–1 [17]-[18]
(HHJ LLoyd QC). See also Conor Engineering Ltd v Les Constructions Industrielle de la Mediterranee [2004]
BLR 212, 216 [18] (Mr Recorder Blunt QC).
16
STATUTORY REGULATION OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
66 ABB Power Construction Ltd v Norwest Holst Engineering Ltd (2000) 77 Con LR 20, 29–30 [15]
(HHJ LLoyd QC).
17
ADJUDICATION IN CONSTRUCTION LAW
not function as they are designed to perform, nor could the plant be operated safely
and efficiently.67
67 ABB Power Construction Ltd v Norwest Holst Engineering Ltd (2000) 77 Con LR 20, 30 [16] (HHJ
LLoyd QC).
68 Homer Burgess Ltd v Chirex (Annan) Ltd [2000] BLR 124, 135 (Outer House, Scottish Court of
Session, Lord MacFadyen).
69 Comsite Projects Ltd v Andritz AG [2003] EWHC 958 (TCC); (2004) 20 Const. LJ 24 [38] (HHJ
Kirkham).
18
STATUTORY REGULATION OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
for the same purpose. Overhead and side screens to prevent light escaping from the
greenhouses and causing light pollution are to be regarded as part and parcel of the
lighting system. The cleaning out and enlargement of reservoirs and the provision of
pipework and other equipment to carry water from the reservoirs for use in water-
ing the cucumbers is all part of the provision or improvement of a system essential
to the carrying on of the business of growing cucumbers in the greenhouses. The
pipework storage tanks and pumping and filtering equipment is clearly plant as it is
apparatus used by the occupier in carrying on its business. The reservoirs are places
where water is collected and stored in order that it may subsequently be used in
the occupier’s business and as such it is part and parcel of the water supply system
for the cucumbers being grown in the greenhouses. The reservoirs cannot fairly
be described as places or settings in which the business is being carried on. They
are part of the means by which the business is carried on and they can properly be
regarded as part of the apparatus by which the occupier actually carries on its busi-
ness of growing cucumbers. They are ‘plant’ just as much as the pipework which
takes water to or from them for use in watering the plants in the greenhouses.70
70 Hortimax v Hedon Salads Ltd (2004) 24 Const LJ 47, 52–3 [11]–[15] (HHJ Gilliland QC).
71 Fence Gate Ltd v James R Knowles Ltd (2001) 84 Con LR 206, 212 [11] (HHJ Gilliland QC).
72 Fence Gate Ltd v James R Knowles Ltd (2001) 84 Con LR 206, 212–13 [12] (HHJ Gilliland QC).
19
ADJUDICATION IN CONSTRUCTION LAW
1.38 A contract for the provision of professional services acting as contract admin-
istrators, including: the initial site survey, preparation of detailed scale plans for
use in applications for statutory consents and in budget costings and for tendering
purposes; preparation of draft scheme drawings and a draft specification; prepara-
tion of a pre-tender budget; issuing of tender documentation; appraisal of tenders;
monitoring and administration of the contract, including site visits and site meet-
ings; preparation of valuations and the issuing of certificates of payment; certifica-
tion of practical completion and agreement of final accounts; and supervision of the
contractor during the defects liability period, constitutes ‘arranging for the carrying
out of construction operations’ under section 104(1)(b) and is also ‘surveying work
… in relation to construction operations’ under section 104(2)(a) in carrying out a
site survey, preparing plans and making valuations.73
73 Gillies Ramsay Diamond v PJW Enterprises Ltd [2004] BLR 131, 137 [15] (1) (Second Division,
Inner House, Scottish Court of Session, Lord Justice Clerk).
74 Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, s 104(3).
75 Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, s 104(6)(a).
76 Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, s 104(6)(b).
77 Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, s 106(1)(a). See also Britton
‘Adjudication and the “Residential Occupier Exeption”: Time for a Rethink?’ a paper presented at a
meeting of the Society of Construction Law in London on 12 May 2015.
78 Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, s 106(2).
79 Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, s 106(2).
20
STATUTORY REGULATION OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
Thomas Construction Ltd v Bick & Bick (t/a J & B Developments,80 the adjudica-
tor decided that the employer was not a residential occupier and was therefore
caught by the 1996 Act. The contract in question concerned the refurbishment of
a number of buildings, some of which were for the employer to live in, but others
were being refurbished for onward sale. The adjudicator decided that, where the
construction was for two dwellings, one of which was to be occupied, and one of
which was to be sold for commercial purposes, the contract in question could not
be said principally to relate to operations on a dwelling which one of the parties to
the contract intended to occupy, and he decided that he had the necessary juris-
diction to adjudicate. That decision was upheld in the TCC. The decision shows
that the burden is on the employers to demonstrate that the exclusion applies to
them.81
1.42 Where work is carried out to a lodge house which is a separate building, not
lived in or intended to be lived in by either of the employers, and the works are not
being carried out for development or commercial purposes, but at a date sometime
after the contract, an intention may be formed by one of the employers to live there,
possibly with a relative, it is the parties’ intentions at the time of the formation of
the contract which are relevant. In such a case, the lodge house is not the residence
of either of the employers, not occupied by either of the employers, not intended to
be occupied by either of the employers at the time when the contract was made, and
not the dwelling or the dwelling house of either of the employers. The definition in
section 106 of the Act is narrow. But by reference to that narrow definition, on the
basis of those facts the employers are not the residential occupiers of the building
that was the subject of the works.82
1.43 At what point should the court assess whether or not the employer occupies
the property as his residence? Is it the date of the formation of the contract? Or is it
important to regard occupation as a continuing operation, and not to overemphasise
the snapshot position at the date of the contract?83 Occupation is an ongoing process
and cannot be tested by reference to a single snapshot in time. The word ‘occupies’
must carry with it some reflection of the future: it indicates that the employer occu-
pies and will remain at (or intends to return to) the property. Thus the evidence
about the position at the date that the contract was made has to be considered in the
context of all of the evidence of occupation and intention, both before and after the
agreement of the contract.84
1.44 It is difficult to imagine how a company could ever be a residential occupier: a
company might occupy premises for commercial purposes, but the use of the word
‘residential’ conveys a requirement that, for the exemption to bite, a real person
must be living in – residing in – the house or flat in question.85
21
ADJUDICATION IN CONSTRUCTION LAW
22
STATUTORY REGULATION OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
the third category will be to the same effect, namely that the evidence in writing
is evidence of the whole agreement. Sub-section (3) is consistent with that view.
Where the parties agree by reference to terms which are in writing, the legislature is
envisaging that all of the material terms are in writing and that the oral agreement
refers to that written record. The written record of the agreement is the foundation
from which a dispute may spring, but the least the adjudicator has to be certain
about is the terms of the agreement which is giving rise to the dispute. On the point
of construction of section 107 what has to be evidenced in writing is, literally, the
agreement, which means all of it, not part of it. A record of the agreement also
suggests a complete agreement not a partial one. An exception to the generality of
that construction is the instance falling within sub-section (5) where the material or
relevant parts alleged and not denied in the written submissions in the adjudication
proceedings are sufficient.93
93 RJT Consulting Engineers Ltd v DM Engineering (N.I.) Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 270, [2002] 1 WLR
2344 [13]–[19] (Ward LJ). Because Auld LJ referred in his short judgment in that case to ‘the material
terms of the agreement’, it is sometimes suggested that it is only those material terms that must be in
writing and not all the terms of the contract. That is an incorrect reading of RJT. It was pointed out in
Trustees of the Stratfield Saye Estate v AHL Construction [2004] EWHC 3286 (TCC), [2004] All ER (D)
77 [46] (Jackson J) that the remarks of Auld LJ were not part of the ratio of the decision in RJT.
94 Bennett (Electrical) Services Ltd v Inviron Ltd [2007] EWHC 49 (TCC) [28] (HHJ Wilcox).
95 Carillion Construction Ltd v Devonport Royal Dockyard [2002] BLR 79, 84 [32] (HHJ Bowsher
QC).
96 Hart Investments Limited v Fidler [2006] EWHC 2857 (TCC), [2007] BLR 30 [60]–[61] (HHJ
Coulson QC).
23
ADJUDICATION IN CONSTRUCTION LAW
mathematical formula by which the price can be determined. It may well be pos-
sible simply by way of construction in the light of the background factual matrix to
determine what the price is; such an exercise would not prevent the construction
contract being a construction contract in writing under the Act. A distinction needs
to be drawn between the construction or interpretation exercise which establishes
what the agreed price is and a written confirmation that something has been orally
agreed; the former can be a construction contract in writing under the Act whilst
the latter cannot.97
97 Rok Building Ltd v Bestwood Carpentry Ltd [2010] EWHC 1409 (TCC) [28] (Akenhead J). See also
Glendalough Associated SA v Harris Calnan Construction Ltd [2013] EWHC 3142 (TCC) [50] (Stewart-
Smith J), citing PT Building Services Ltd v ROK Build Ltd [2008] EWHC 3434 (TCC) (Ramsey J).
98 Allen Wilson Joinery Ltd v Privetgrange Construction Ltd [2008] EWHC 2802 (TCC) [27] (Akenhead
J).
99 Group Connex South Eastern Ltd v MJ Building Services PLC [2004] BLR 333 [24] (HHJ Havery
QC).
100 Galliford Try Construction Ltd v Michael Heal Associates Ltd [2003] EWHC 2886 (TCC) [29]
(HHJ Seymour QC).
24
STATUTORY REGULATION OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
contracts by statute. Others are implied into contracts to give them ‘business efficacy’
or, in effect, to make the contracts work. There are other requirements said to exist
such as reasonableness of implied terms. Terms are implied into contracts as a matter
of law, albeit that some terms may be implied in the context of a factual relation-
ship or even a factual history which exists between the parties. There is no reason to
distinguish between different implied terms in the context of section 107. Thus, the
implication of any terms does not render what would otherwise be a written contract
under that section into something not covered by Part II of the Act.101
101 Allen Wilson Joinery Ltd v Privetgrange Construction Ltd [2008] EWHC 2802 (TCC) [30]
(Akenhead J).
102 Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, s 107(6), subject to repeal by Local
Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, s 139.
103 Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, s 107(4), subject to repeal by Local
Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, s 139.
104 Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, s 107(5), subject to repeal by Local
Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, s 139.
105 [1993] AC 593.
25
ADJUDICATION IN CONSTRUCTION LAW
tion which he did not have when he was appointed. Read in that way sub-section
107(5) has a sensible and practical intention and purpose. Disputes as to terms,
express and implied, of oral construction agreements are surprisingly common and
not readily susceptible to resolution by a summary procedure such as adjudication.
It is not surprising that Parliament should have intended that such disputes should
not be determined by adjudicators under the Act, but if in any case such room
for dispute has been removed by previous formal and binding legal submissions,
then the adjudicator has jurisdiction.106 A different view is that sub-section 107(5)
requires that a contract that does not fulfil the requirements of sub-section 107(2)
may nonetheless be subject to Part II of the Act if (1) there has been an exchange of
written submission in the adjudication; (2) in that exchange, the referring party has
alleged that there was an agreement otherwise than in writing; and (3) the respond-
ing party had not denied the existence of that agreement.107 It has also been pointed
out that the Pepper v Hart approach should primarily be adopted if there is some
ambiguity and there is no ambiguity in the wording: it can apply to any adjudication
proceedings before, after, concurrent with or the same as those under review by
the court. If there is no denial of an oral variation, the exchange of submission and
response constitutes for the purposes of the Act an agreement in writing.108 If the
referral notice does not refer to an agreement that is clearly in writing and is consist-
ent with the assertion of an agreement made otherwise than in writing, then sub-
section 107(5) is engaged – even if the words could also be construed as describing
a written agreement. This is because, on one reading, what is being alleged is an
agreement made otherwise than in writing.109
106 Grovedeck Ltd v Capital Demolition Ltd [2000] BLR 181, 185 [29]–[30] (HHJ Bowsher QC).
107 Mott MacDonald Ltd v London & Regional Properties Ltd [2007] EWHC 1055 (TCC), (2007)
Con LR 31 [54] (HHJ Thornton QC).
108 Treasure & Son Ltd v Dawes [2007] EWHC 2420 (TCC), [2008] BLR 24, 33 [44] (Akenhead J).
109 Glendalough Associated SA v Harris Calnan Construction Ltd [2013] EWHC 3142 (TCC) [24]
(Stewart-Smith J), in reliance on SG South Ltd v Swan Yard (Cirencester) Ltd [2010] EWHC 376 (TCC)
[10] (Coulson J).
110 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, s 139, repealing s 107 of
the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 in relation to contracts made on or after 1
October 2011 in England and Wales, 1 November 2011 in Scotland and 14 November 2012 in Northern
Ireland. See Chapter 1, para 3, above.
111 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, s 139, repealing s 107
and amending s 108(2) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996.
112 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, s 139, repealing s 107
of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996.
26
STATUTORY REGULATION OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
27
ADJUDICATION IN CONSTRUCTION LAW
the National Audit Act 1983 (nationalised industries and other public authorities);
bodies the accounts of which are subject to audit by auditors appointed by the
Audit Commission; the governing bodies or trustees of voluntary schools under
section 31 of the Education Act 1996 (county schools and voluntary schools); or
companies wholly owned by the foregoing bodies.119 Where the Local Democracy,
Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 applies, a sub-category of
construction contract is excluded from the operation of the provision in the 1996
Act as amended that the requirement that contracts provide an adequate mecha-
nism for establishing what payments become due and when under the contract is
not met, if payment is conditional on obligations being performed under another
contract. The sub-category comprises contracts pursuant to which a party to a pfi
contract has subcontracted to a third party some or all of its obligations under that
contract to carry out, or arrange that others carry out, construction operations.120
The type of contract excluded is what is known as a ‘first tier pfi sub-contract’. This
is a contract whereby the non-public body party to an agreement entered into under
the private finance initiative sub-contracts, to a third party, obligations under that
agreement relating to the carrying out of construction work. Provisions in first-tier
pfi sub-contracts which make payments in such contracts conditional upon obliga-
tions being performed in other contracts (obligations such as providing certificates)
will be effective. Obligations in other contracts in this context do not include obliga-
tions to pay money: a provision in a first-tier pfi sub-contract to the effect that the
party carrying out work will not be paid until the other party to the sub-contract has
under the other contact, will, generally speaking, continue to be ineffective by virtue
of section 113 of the 1996 Act.121
119 Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Exclusion Order 1998, SI 1998 No 648, art 4 (2)
(c).
120 Construction Contracts Exclusion (England) Order 2011(SI 2011 No 2332) arts 3 & 4.
121 Explanatory Notes to Construction Contracts Exclusion (England) Order 2011(SI 2011 No
2332). An Explanatory Note may be referred to as an aid to construction where the legislation to which it
is attached is ambiguous: Coventry & Solihull Waste Disposal Co Ltd v Russell (Valuation Officer) [1999] 1
WLR 2093, 2103D (Lord Hope); D & M, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions
[2010] EWCA Civ 18, [2010] 1 WLR 1782, 1800H–1A [48] (Carnwath LJ).
122 Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Exclusion Order 1998, SI 1998 No 648, art 5(1).
123 Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Exclusion Order 1998, SI 1998 No 648, art 5(2).
124 Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Exclusion Order 1998, SI 1998 No 648, art 5(2).
28
STATUTORY REGULATION OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
125 Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Exclusion Order 1998, SI 1998 No 648, art 6(1).
126 Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Exclusion Order 1998, SI 1998 No 648, art 6(2).
127 Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Exclusion Order 1998, SI 1998 No 648, art 6(3).
128 Captiva Estates Ltd v Rybarn Ltd [2005] EWHC 2744 (TCC), [2006] BLR 66, 70–1 [14]–[15]
(HHJ Wilcox).
129 Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, s 106A, as inserted by the Local
Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, s 138.
29
ADJUDICATION IN CONSTRUCTION LAW
30
STATUTORY REGULATION OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
138 Epping Electrical Company Ltd v Briggs and Forrester (Plumbing Services) Ltd [2007] EWHC 4
(TCC); [2007} BLR 12 [19] (HHJ Havery QC): see also Ritchie Brothers (PWC) Ltd v David Philp
(Commercials) Ltd [2005] BLR 384 (Scotland, Inner House, Court of Session, Lord Eassie).
139 John Mowlem v Hydra-Tight Ltd (2002) 17 Const LJ 358, 363 (HHJ Toulmin CMG, QC).
140 Aveat Heating Ltd v Jerram Falkus Construction Ltd [2007] EWHC 131 (TCC), (113 Con LR 13,
16 [6] & 13–14 [8] (HHJ Havery QC).
31
ADJUDICATION IN CONSTRUCTION LAW
provisions, only one member of the pair were to be treated in any given case as pre-
vailing over the other. The conclusion that the two sets of adjudication provisions
– contractual and the Scheme – exist as alternative packages, only one of which (at
the option of the party initiating the adjudication) applies in any given case is not
the intention of the legislation. Although the notice of intention to refer a dispute
to adjudication could refer to the contractual adjudication provisions, this may not
always be so. Thus, there might well be confusion and uncertainty over which terms
apply.141
1.64 The position should now be regarded as settled: if there is any non-compliance
with section 108 of the Act, the adjudication provisions in Part 1 of the Scheme are
brought in – lock, stock and barrel.142
141 Aveat Heating Ltd v Jerram Falkus Construction Ltd [2007] EWHC 131 (TCC), 113 Con LR 13,
16 [7] (HHJ Havery QC).
142 Yuanda (UK) Co Ltd v WW Gear Construction Ltd [2010] EWHC 720 (TCC) [61]–[62]
(Edwards-Stuart J).
143 Laker Vent Engineering Ltd v Jacobs E & C Ltd [2014] EWHC 1058 (TCC) [66]–[70] (Ramsey
J).
144 [2014] EWHC 10 (TCC) [58]: ‘the validity of the procedure by which the adjudicator was
nominated goes to the heart of his jurisdiction’ (Edwards-Stuart J).
32
STATUTORY REGULATION OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
waived by a party who expressly referred to the England and Wales Scheme in some
documents.145
145 Laker Vent Engineering Ltd v Jacobs E & C Ltd [2014] EWHC 1058 (TCC) [112] (Ramsey J).
146 John Mowlem v Hydra-Tight Ltd (2002) 17 Const LJ 358, 363 (HHJ Toulmin CMG, QC). See
also R G Carter Ltd v Edmund Nuttall Ltd, 21st June 2000, unreported.
147 Midland Expressway Ltd v Carillion Construction Ltd (No 2) [2005] EWHC 2963 (TCC); (2005)
106 Con LR 154, 172, [65] (Jackson J).
148 Midland Expressway Ltd v Carillion Construction Ltd (No 2) [2005] EWHC 2963 (TCC); (2005)
106 Con LR 154, 172, [65] (Jackson J).
149 Yuanda (UK) Co Ltd v WW Gear Construction Ltd [2010] EWHC 720 (TCC) [51] (Edwards-
Stuart J).
33
ADJUDICATION IN CONSTRUCTION LAW
been awarded by the adjudicator, the clause is designed to discourage a party from
exercising its right to take disputes to adjudication.150
150 Pioneer Cladding Ltd v John Graham Construction Ltd [2013] EWHC 2954 (TCC) [4]–[5]
(Coulson J).
151 SI 1999, No 2083.
152 Bryen & Langley v Boston [2005] EWCA Civ 973, [2005] BLR 508 (Rimer J).
153 Pegram Shopfitters Limited v Tally Weijl (UK) Limited [2004] 1 BLR 65, 67 [2] (May LJ).
154 [2003] 1 BLR 487, 503 [129]–[132] (HHJ Toulmin CMG, QC).
155 [2003] 1 BLR 452, 463 [29] (HHJ Moseley QC).
156 Bryen & Langley v Boston [2005] EWCA Civ 973, [2005] BLR 508 [43] (Rimer J).
34
STATUTORY REGULATION OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
35
ADJUDICATION IN CONSTRUCTION LAW
supplier, rather it was the consumer, acting through his agent, who imposed them
on the supplier, as they were specified in the agent’s original invitation to tender,
assuming that, in practice, the consumer played no part in the preparation of that
invitation and that he did not receive any advice from the agent on the provisions
now in question. It is clear that there was no individual negotiation over them with
the supplier, however, in principle, the consumer had the opportunity to influence
the terms on which the contractors were being invited to tender, even though he
may not have taken it up. There is, therefore, at least an argument available to the
supplier under Regulation 5(2) to the effect that the terms of which he now com-
plains are not terms which fall within the first nine words of Regulation 5(1). Even
so, in light of the fact that it was the consumer, by his agent, who imposed the terms
on the supplier, the suggestion that there was any lack of good faith or fair dealing
by the supplier with regard to the ultimate incorporation of these terms into the
contract is repugnant to common sense. If it was to tender at all, the supplier were
being asked by the consumer to tender on (inter alia) the very terms of which the
consumer then complained. It was not for the supplier to take the matter up with
him and ensure that he knew what he was doing: they knew that he had the benefit
of the services of a professional, his agent, to advise him of the effects of the terms
on which he was inviting tenders. There was no lack of openness, fair dealing or
good faith in the manner in which the contract came to be made and in those cir-
cumstances the consumer’s case under the 1999 Regulations was not made out.160
160 Bryen & Langley v Boston [2005] EWCA Civ 973 [46] (Rimer J).
161 Domsalla v Dyason [2007] EWHC 1174 (TCC); 112 Con LR 95 [92]–[93] HHJ Thornton QC:
the withholding provisions of the contract were held to be unfair.
36
STATUTORY REGULATION OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
1.18.1 Introduction
1.77 Under the Human Rights Act 1998, the Articles set out in Schedule 1 are to
have effect for the purposes of that Act subject to any designated derogation or res-
ervation.162 The Articles consist of articles of the European Convention on Human
Rights and subsequent protocols, known collectively as ‘Convention rights’.163
Article 6(1) of Schedule 1 provides that in the determination of his civil rights and
obligations, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time
by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law, and that judgment
shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or
part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a demo-
cratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of
the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court
in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.164
So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must
be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.165
This applies to primary legislation and subordinate legislation whenever enacted,
but does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incom-
patible primary legislation.166
1.78 If the court is satisfied that the provision is incompatible with a Convention
right, it may make a declaration of that incompatibility,167 but a declaration of
incompatibility does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of
the provision in respect of which it is given and is not binding on the parties to the
proceedings in which it is made.168 It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a
way which is incompatible with a Convention right.169 However, this does not apply
to an act if as the result of one or more provisions of primary legislation, the author-
ity could not have acted differently; or in the case of one or more provisions of, or
made under, primary legislation which cannot be read or given effect in a way which
is compatible with the Convention rights, the authority was acting so as to give effect
to or enforce those provisions.170 A person who claims that a public authority has
acted (or proposes to act) in a way which is made unlawful by the Human Rights Act
1998 may bring proceedings against the authority under the Act in the appropriate
court or tribunal, or rely on the Convention right or rights concerned in any legal
proceedings, but only if he is (or would be) a victim of the unlawful act.171
37
ADJUDICATION IN CONSTRUCTION LAW
172 Austin Hall Building Ltd v Buckland Securities Ltd [2001] BLR 272, 275–6 [12] (HHJ Bowsher
QC).
173 Austin Hall Building Ltd v Buckland Securities Ltd [2001] BLR 272, 277 [22] (HHJ Bowsher QC).
174 Austin Hall Building Ltd v Buckland Securities Ltd [2001] BLR 272, 280 [40] (HHJ Bowsher QC).
175 Austin Hall Building Ltd v Buckland Securities Ltd [2001] BLR 272, 279 [35] (HHJ Bowsher QC).
38
STATUTORY REGULATION OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
176 Austin Hall Building Ltd v Buckland Securities Ltd [2001] BLR 272, 280–1 [45] (HHJ Bowsher
QC). See also Elanay Contractors Ltd v The Vestry [2001] BLR 33 (HHJ Havery QC) and Whyte &
Mackay Ltd v Blyth & Blyth Consulting Engineers Ltd [2013] CSOH 54 [63]–[64] (Lord Malcolm).
177 Human Rights Act 1998, Sched I, Pt II, Art. I.
178 Whyte & Mackay Ltd v Blyth & Blyth Consulting Engineers Ltd [2013] CSOH 54 [45] (Lord
Malcolm).
179 Whyte & Mackay Ltd v Blyth & Blyth Consulting Engineers Ltd [2013] CSOH 54 [46] (Lord
Malcolm).
180 Austin Hall Building Ltd v Buckland Securities Ltd [2001] BLR 272, 281 [51] (HHJ Bowsher QC).
181 Austin Hall Building Ltd v Buckland Securities Ltd [2001] BLR 272, 278 [31] 281–2 [53] (HHJ
Bowsher QC).
39
ADJUDICATION IN CONSTRUCTION LAW
1.19.1 Administration
1.84 During the period for which an Administration Order is in force no other
proceedings and no execution or other legal process may be commenced or con-
tinued and no distress may be levied against the company subject to the Order
or its property except with the consent of the administrator or the leave of the
court and subject, where the court gives leave, to such terms as aforesaid.182
‘Other proceedings’ means either legal proceedings or quasi-legal proceedings such
as arbitration.183 The adjudication procedure under section 108 of the Housing
Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 constitutes quasi-legal proceed-
ings such as arbitration within that classification and leave of the court is required
before an adjudication can be begun or continued against a company subject to an
Administration Order.184
1.85 The discretion as to whether or not to grant leave to commence or continue
should be exercised in accordance with the principles identified by the Court of
Appeal in Re Atlantic Computers Plc.185 Those guidelines are formulated for cases
where proprietary rights, including security rights, such as those held by landlords,
lessors or mortgagors, are sought to be exercised under the immediately preceding
section 11(3)(c) of the Insolvency Act 1986. However, with appropriate modifica-
tions, these guidelines are clearly helpful in considering whether a creditor should
be granted leave to enforce a trade debt under section 11(3)(d) of that Act. The
relevant guidelines are:
(1) It is in every case for the party who seeks leave to make out a case for it to
be given leave.
(2) The prohibition in section 11(3)(d) is intended to assist the company, under
the management of the administrators, to achieve the purpose for which the
administration order was made. If granting leave to a creditor to exercise his
contractual or restitutionary rights and sue for the payment of his debt is
unlikely to impede the achievement of that purpose, leave should normally
be given.
(3) In other cases the court has to carry out a balancing exercise, balancing the
legitimate interests of the creditor and the legitimate interests of the other
creditors of the company. This is to enable a balance to be struck between
the statutory objective of enforcing the prohibition to assist the company
to achieve the object for which the administration order was made and the
statutory power to relax the prohibition where it would be inequitable for
the prohibition to apply.
(4) Greater importance is given to those with proprietary interests than to
40
STATUTORY REGULATION OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
those who are mere unsecured creditors. The underlying principle is that an
administration for the benefit of unsecured creditors generally should not
be conducted at their expense or at the expense of secured or preferential
creditors save where this may be unavoidable and, even then, only to a
limited extent.
(5) It will normally be a sufficient ground for the grant of leave if significant loss
would be caused to the creditor by the refusal. However, that loss should
not prevail if substantially greater loss would be caused to others by the
grant of leave.
(6) In assessing these matters the court will have regard to matters such as: the
financial position of the company, its ability to pay the debt, the administra-
tors, proposals, the period for which the administration order has been in
force and is expected to remain in force, the effect on the administration if
leave were given, the effect on the applicant if leave were refused, the end
result sought to be obtained by the administration, the prospects of that
result being achieved, and the history of the administration so far.
(7) In considering these matters it will often be necessary to assess how prob-
able the suggested consequences are. Thus if loss to the applicant is virtu-
ally certain if leave is refused, and loss to others a remote possibility if leave
is granted, that will be a powerful factor in favour of granting leave.
(8) The conduct of the parties may also be a material consideration.
(9) The court will not decide a dispute as to whether the debt in question is due
unless it is a short point that must be decided.186
The court will not exercise its discretion to grant leave if the right of set off has been
excluded by the construction contract and the effect of allowing an adjudication to
be commenced or continued would permit its introduction by other means.187
186 Joinery Plus Ltd v Laing Ltd [2003] BLR 184, 204–5 [106]–[108] (HHJ Thornton QC).
187 A Straume (UK) Ltd v Bradlor Developments Ltd [2001] TCLR 409, [2000] BCC 333 (HHJ
Berhens). See also Joinery Plus Ltd v Laing Ltd [2003] BLR 184, 204–6 [102]–[120] (HHJ Thornton
QC).
188 Insolvency Act 1986, s 130(2).
189 Insolvency Act 1986, s 126(1).
41
ADJUDICATION IN CONSTRUCTION LAW
42
STATUTORY REGULATION OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
to the adjudication in any event. That conclusion, to the effect that Rule 4.90 envis-
ages a single and final ascertainment process, is consistent with the clear words of
the Rule; consistent with Lord Hoffmann’s reference to ‘a single account’ in Stein
v Blake; and consistent both with the earlier decision of the Court of Appeal in MS
Fashions v BCCI 196and the subsequent decision of the House of Lords in Secretary
of State for Trade and Industry v Frid.197 In none of those authorities is a piecemeal,
slice-by-slice approach suggested as being in any way appropriate for the taking of
the account under Rule 4.90.198
43