ARTICLE
18 March 2016

Manor Asset Ltd v Demolition Services Ltd [2016] EWHC 222 (TCC)

CC
Clyde & Co

Contributor

Clyde & Co  logo
Clyde & Co is a leading, sector-focused global law firm with 415 partners, 2200 legal professionals and 3800 staff in over 50 offices and associated offices on six continents. The firm specialises in the sectors that move, build and power our connected world and the insurance that underpins it, namely: transport, infrastructure, energy, trade & commodities and insurance. With a strong focus on developed and emerging markets, the firm is one of the fastest growing law firms in the world with ambitious plans for further growth.
Here the court found an implied term in a building contract to allow it to comply with the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (Construction Act).
UK Real Estate and Construction
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

Here the court found an implied term in a building contract to allow it to comply with the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (Construction Act).  The amended JCT minor works contract provided for final payment to be made 72 hours after receipt of an invoice.  However the pay less notice provisions had not been amended, meaning that service of a pay less notice had to occur prior to the issue of the invoice (being 5 days before final date for payment).   When the employer served a pay less notice on 28 October, 5 days after an invoice issued on 23 October, the contractor started an adjudication, claiming the notice was invalid. 

The adjudicator found for the contractor, deciding that the notice should have been served on 21 October, before the invoice was issued.  The employer issued court proceedings for a declaration (i) that the decision was unenforceable as the adjudicator had breached the rules of natural justice, and (ii) as to the correct date for service of a pay less notice.  The judge enforced the adjudicator's decision, noting there had been no breach of the rules of natural justice.  He then went on to consider the correct date for service of a pay less notice.  Although the contractual provision was unworkable, substituting the provisions of the Scheme would be of no assistance, as these would also provide for the pay less notice to be provided prior to receipt of the invoice. 

The court therefore held that the only solution was to find that the parties had impliedly agreed the prescribed period for service of the pay less notice was 'nil', meaning it could be served right up to the final date for payment.  This solution was not one that had been proposed by the parties, but represented perhaps the best outcome, where relying on the Scheme would not solve the problem.  It is likely there will be only rare occasions where it will be appropriate to imply a term in lieu of importing the Scheme.

To read more, please click here.

Manor Asset Ltd v Demolition Services Ltd [2016] EWHC 222 (TCC)

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More