Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
In this year’s end of year comment, our Lexis®PSL Construction team consider what their standout legal developmentwas in construction in 2018 and preview the anticipated talking points for 2019.
First published on Lexis®PSL on 12 December 2018.
For us, the standout developmentwas the Grove v S&T litigation, specifically as it concerned interim payments under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA 1996). In February, the Technology and Construction
Court (TCC) held that an employer was able to challenge, by way of further adjudication, the amount due to a contractor in respect of an interim application, by reference to the true value of the works—even if the employer had not given a valid
payment notice or pay less notice ( EWHC 123 (TCC),
177 ConLR 30). This was then upheld
by the Court of Appeal in November ( EWCA Civ 2448).
The HGCRA 1996 sets out a regime for payments in construction
contracts, largely in order to ensure the cash flow of contractors. The regime operates on a system of notices—often the contractor makes an application for payment to the employer, and the employer then gives a payment notice followed by a
pay less notice. However, as shown by the amount of case-law on this issue, it is not unheard of for an employer to fail to give either a valid payment notice or pay less notice.
Prior to Grove v S&T, if the employer failed to give either notice, it would be deemed to have agreed to the amount claimed in the contractor’s application (ISG v Seevic  EWHC 4007 (TCC),
157 ConLR 107 and Galliford Try v Estura
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
Jon is a Professional Support Lawyer at LexisNexis, specialising in construction law.
Jon trained at Hogan Lovells and qualified into the construction disputes team there in 2011. He joined LexisNexis in February 2016. Jon has experience of acting for various parties (including employers, main contractors, subcontractors and project managers) in relation to disputes arising out of construction and engineering projects in various jurisdictions. Jon has acted for clients in TCC litigation, arbitration, adjudication and mediation as well as providing advice on various aspects of construction and engineering projects.
0330 161 1234