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.

HHJ Purle had to consider an application for directions by liquidators of WGL, a company which was involved in a construction project for the School under a JCT Intermediate Building Contract (with Contractor’s Design) 2005 as amended. A dispute had arisen as to who owed money to whom, and the court was asked to decide the correct forum for resolving that dispute. According to the liquidators, around £615k was due to WGL, and according to the School, £270k was due to them.

The claim here related to the ACA Standard Form of Contract for Term Partnering, which as Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart said was specifically devised for situations where one party requires the other to carry out a series of relatively minor but repetitive or cyclical tasks over a substantial period or “Term”: here building, repair and related services for a local authority. The employer or client would place orders for particular “Tasks” during the Term and the contractor (or Connaught), referred to as the “Service Provider”, would carry them out and submit monthly valuations for payment.

[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.

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.

[2019] EWCA Civ 27

[2019] EWCA Civ 27

The Cannon case was heard at the same time as the Bresco appeal, although if searching for it, the case will be found under the Bresco name and reference. Here, there was a lengthy procedural history culminating in Cannon resisting summary judgment of an adjudication decision on the basis that Primus might not be able to repay the sums, because Primus was in a CVA. The Judge at first instance said:

In August 2018, in Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Limited v Bresco Electrical Services Limited (In Liquidation) 1 Mr Justice Fraser had the opportunity in the context of CPR Part 8 proceedings to clarify whether or not a liquidator can pursue a claim in adjudication arising out of a construction contract.

Every now and again our clients find themselves faced with a claim, or the threat of a claim, arising out of a construction contract where the party claiming money is in liquidation. In these circumstances it can be difficult to explain that a party in liquidation has no right to adjudicate a claim given that the right to adjudicate a dispute under a construction contract arises, according to the Construction Act, “at any time”. Hopefully any uncertainty surrounding this issue has now been finally resolved.

The insolvency of Carillion has placed into sharp relief the difficulties faced by those both up and down the contractual chain for a construction project when one part of that chain becomes insolvent and the ultimate supplier of goods and materials on site has not been paid.