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
In a summary judgment application, the court held that the defendant was liable as primary obligor under the terms of an agreement under which his company (the sub-contractor) had been provided with a £4m cash advance by the claimant contractor.
It rejected the defendant’s argument that it only imposed secondary obligations on him.
This same-day case analysis is from LexisPSL Construction. Click here for a free trial.
Multiplex Construction Europe Ltd (formerly Brookfield Multiplex Construction Europe Ltd) v Dunne  EWHC 3073 (TCC)
The case provides an example of the court construing the terms of a suretyship agreement to determine whether it is an indemnity (under which the surety has primary liability), or a guarantee (under which its liability is secondary, arising only where
another person is in breach).
In particular, the judgment indicates (albeit on a technically obiter basis) that the contra proferentum rule (ie that any ambiguity is to be resolved against the party who put it forward and seeks to rely on it) now has a very limited role when interpreting
such documents entered into by companies of equal bargaining power. In fact, the court noted that it had ‘only skeletal, if any, remains’ in commercial cases generally. Earlier this year the Court of Appeal had confirmed the rule’s
limited application in relation to exclusion clauses (see News Analysis: Court of Appeal considers limitation and exclusion clause (Persimmon Homes v Arup)).
It also suggests that, where a provision contains two triggers for the surety’s liability, there is no reason why one trigger cannot create a primary obligation and the other a secondary obligation.
Multiplex appointed Mr Dunne’s company, Dunne Building and Civil Engineering Limited (DBCE), as sub-contractor under a number sub-contracts relating to various projects. When DBCE encountered financial
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