Project Bank Accounts (PBA) are a payment mechanism based on ring-fenced bank accounts created to increase the security of contractors and sub-contractors in a building project. Their main benefits include security and speed of payment and protection of funds in potential insolvency. Sounds too good to be true? PBAs are becoming increasingly common, and with the Government commitment to use PBAs “unless there are compelling reasons not to do so”, their joint value in public sector contracts is expected to reach £4bn by this year.

Insurers and insureds do not bear the risk of a contractor becoming insolvent when undertaking insured repair work. The insurer’s only obligation is to pay its appointed contractor and not any subcontractors engaged by that party.

Background

The Technology and Construction Court has decided that judgment should not be stayed following a contractor's unsuccessful defence of an adjudication claim brought by its M&E subcontractor.

The case reaffirmed some key principles in assessing whether a stay is justified in adjudication enforcement proceedings:

[2019] EWCA Civ 230

This was an appeal by the supplier of a software system against a TCC judgment dismissing its claim and ordering it to pay substantial damages on the counterclaim. The main issue of principle which arose was how to apply a clause imposing liquidated damages for delay in circumstances where the contractor or supplier never achieves completion.

EY's Hunter Kelly and Alan Hudson have been appointed administrators over UK construction services company Interserve, hours after it failed to secure shareholder approval for a restructuring plan.  

Kelly and Hudson were appointed over Interserve Plc, the holding company for the Interserve Group, on 15 March after the plan failed to win approval at a shareholders' general meeting earlier the same day. 

Imagine this: a contractor undertakes to perform certain works by a specified date, and agrees to pay liquidated damages (LDs) if it does not complete by that date (subject to any entitlement to an extension of time). The contractor, through its own fault, is late and does not complete by the specified date. In fact, the contractor is very late and, in the end, the employer terminates the contract before the works are completed (as it is entitled to do under the contract).

• The Court of Appeal has given guidance to insolvent companies about whether to commence an adjudication.
• There is an important distinction to be drawn between a company in a CVA and one in liquidation.
• Parties need to be careful when making general reservations to an adjudicator's jurisdiction.

What's it about?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered two appeals in which the interplay between the construction adjudication process and the insolvency regime was considered; Bresco Electrical Services Limited (in liquidation) v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Limited (see my blog of 28 September 2018 on the TCC decision) and Cannon Corporate Limited v Primus Build Limited.

The Court of Appeal decision in Triple Point Technology Inc v PTT Public Company Ltd turns on the wording of that particular contract, but was, in part, unexpected.

This decision does not reflect the generally held view (prior to this case) that liquidated damages will be recoverable until the point of termination at least.

Background

Last year the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) held that a company in liquidation cannot refer a dispute to adjudication in circumstances where there are claims by a company in liquidation and cross claims by the other party1.