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
Printer Friendly Version
In a significant judgment (Grove Developments v S&T), the Technology and Construction Court 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 or pay less notice.
In the court’s view, this conclusion was supported by first principles and Court of Appeal authorities, and it described analysis in the earlier decisions of ISG v Seevic and Galliford Try v Estura as ‘erroneous
This ruling by Coulson J, who shortly leaves the TCC for the Court of Appeal, represents a significant departure from previous authorities—most notably the 2014/2015 decisions of Edwards-Stuart J in ISG v Seevic and Galliford Try v Estura.
Those cases held that, where a paying party under a construction contract failed to give a payment or pay less notice, it was deemed to have agreed to the amount stated in the contractor’s interim payment application, and therefore could not challenge
the ‘true value’ in adjudication (or otherwise).
This previous position gave support to ‘smash and grab’ adjudications, in which, following a failure by an employer to give the required notice, a contractor could obtain an adjudication decision for the amount in its application (which may
be significantly more than the employer considered to be the true value of the works) which the employer would then be unable to challenge until the next payment cycle or even the final account.
In light of this new judgment, where a paying party fails to give a valid payment or pay less notice:
However, it is worth noting that there was a question as to whether the court’s finding in this regard was obiter (although the court did not think that it was) and that it drew support from the specific terms of the contract (a JCT Design and Build
Contract 2011), in particular the distinction between the use of ‘sum due’ and the ‘sum stated as due’.
Click here to read our full analysis of the case (subscription to LexisPSL required: sign up for a free trial here).
0330 161 1234