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.

The Case

This is the first time that the HGCRA has reached the House of Lords. The dispute here, which related to the payment part of that legislation, highlighted the tension between an employer’s payment obligations and the impact on those obligations of the contractor going into administration. Here, on 2 May 2003, Melville applied for an interim payment. No withholding notice was served. The final date for payment was 16 May 2003. Wimpey did not pay, but on 22 May 2003 administrative receivers were appointed.

Insolvency of a contractor or a sub-contractor during the course of a building project has the potential to incur other parties involved in the project in considerable costs.

Here are some of the things to bear in mind in case a contractor or sub-contractor becomes insolvent.

Following the House of Lords' decision in Melville Dundas in April, the TCC has now decided in the case of Pierce Design v Johnston on 17 July that the case has a wide application - but unreasonable failure to pay may still be penalised.

The decision of the House of Lords in Melville Dundas in April resolved a tension between the payment provisions of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 ("the Act") and contractual clauses applying to payments after termination of building contracts.

Termination, rights to withhold payment and withholding notices under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 Under the JCT suite of contracts, an employer is entitled to terminate the contractor’s employment where the contractor has become insolvent (including the appointment of administrative receivers in relation to the contractor). If an employer exercises this right of termination, the JCT provisions set out the resulting financial consequences.