In the current economic climate, security for payment is key. Although banks have started to lend money again, they remain cautious and those construction firms with weak balance sheets remain at risk of insolvency. This article discusses five pitfalls in the context of some relevant case-law and devices to protect against these.

In times of economic uncertainty, when the prospect of insolvency is prevalent, contracting parties need, more than ever, to be aware of issues that could have an unanticipated effect on their position. The existence of Retention of Title (RoT) clauses in contracts, particularly in the construction context, and the effect of the relevant legislation, need to be considered carefully.

Many of us in the construction industry seem to be hearing the same old bed time story over and over again: A instructs B to do the work; B does the work; A does not pay B; for months the parties dispute the level of payment due; B becomes fed up waiting for payment and takes steps to wind up A.

Is this the most appropriate way to deal with a disputed debt?

In William Hare Ltd v Shepherd Construction Ltd, the judgment of which can be accessed here, the consequences of an anachronistic piece of contract drafting cost the losing party over £1 million. The issue here was whether or not the contractor under a building sub-contract could successfully pass the risk of the employer’s insolvency onto its sub-contractor by means of what is commonly known as a “pay when paid” clause.

In the case of William Hare Ltd v Shepherd Construction Ltd [2009] EWHC 1603 (TCC) (25 June 2009), the court declined to incorporate amendments made to an Act before the contract was signed which were not specifically referred to in the contract.

The facts

The provision of bonds by contractors as security has assumed renewed importance as a means of protecting employers, given the rising trend of contractor insolvencies.  

Company Voluntary Arrangements or CVA’s

Mead sought to enforce an adjudicator's decision of £332k. Dartmoor resisted on the basis that, as Mead was subject to a CVA, a stay should be granted on any judgment otherwise awarded to Mead. Mr Justice Coulson refused. There was no previous authority dealing with the point, but the Judge decided the following principles were relevant:  

In the construction industry, contractor insolvency delays projects, increases costs and may deprive the employer of remedies and third parties of meaningful warranty protection. In 2008, it was reported that the number of construction firms facing grave financial concerns was 547 per cent higher than in 2007 (Building, 14 November 2008). As contractor insolvencies are likely to increase in 2009, how can an employer protect its position at the start of a project and when contractor insolvency occurs?  

Contractual safeguards  

The purchase of off-site materials has always been an area fraught with risk for contractors and employers; even more so with the increasing threat of supplier insolvency.

Many local authorities are involved in large and expensive projects. It is often the case that costs and timetables for projects will be tight. Therefore any problems that arise on site or with the contractor will have serious consequences for the local authority and its ability to complete the project on time and on budget.

One of the worst headaches a local authority can face during a project is the main building contractor becoming insolvent during the course of a construction project.