HGCRA 1996 payment provisions—key cases
HGCRA 1996 payment provisions—key cases

The following Construction practice note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • HGCRA 1996 payment provisions—key cases
  • 2020
  • JSM v Western Power Distribution
  • J & B Hopkins v Trant Engineering
  • Broseley London v Prime Asset Management
  • Rochford Construction v Kilhan Construction
  • C Spencer v MW High Tech Projects
  • 2019
  • Everwarm v BN Rendering
  • C Spencer v MW High Tech Projects
  • More...

This Practice Note lists key cases concerning the construction contract payment provisions of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA 1996) as amended by the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

For further guidance, see Practice Notes: Payment in construction contracts under the HGCRA 1996 and Summary of payment provisions in the HGCRA 1996. In relation to interim payments, see also Practice Note: Interim payments in construction contracts.

CAUTION: From December 2014 (when judgment was handed down in ISG v Seevic) up until February 2018 (when judgment was handed down by the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) in Grove v S&T), payment cases proceeded on the basis that, where a paying party failed to give a payment or pay less notice in relation to an interim payment, it was deemed to have agreed to the amount stated in the payee’s payment application/default payment notice. Accordingly, in relation to the relevant interim payment, the paying party could not then challenge the ‘true value’ of the works in adjudication (or otherwise). Following Grove v S&T, which has since been confirmed on appeal, this is no longer good law.

Cases relating to pay less notices may also be relevant to payees’ payment applications/payment notices, and vice versa. In Grove v S&T, the TCC did not think that the courts should generally adopt a different approach to

Popular documents