The following Construction guidance note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:
This article appears as originally published in Construction Law on 1 September 2015 and is not maintained.
Michael Sergeant of Holman Fenwick Willan considers the recent Court of Appeal case of Hojgaard v E.ON and the challenges it presents for those drafting and negotiating construction contracts.
The Court of Appeal emphasises the importance of finding the parties’ common intention in the contract and rejecting inconsistent wording
Performance specifications buried deep within technical appendices to a contract may be considered inconsistent with other provisions
Contract drafters need to ensure that key performance requirements are given prominence
Lawyers should be wary about adopting a ‘kitchen sink’ approach to putting together contractual provisions
The recent Court of Appeal judgment in MT Hojgaard v E.ON Climate and Renewables UK Robin Rigg  EWCA Civ 407 concerns one of the most common challenges construction lawyers face: how to make sense of a contract containing a myriad of inconsistent technical and design obligations. The case will also be of considerable interest to front end lawyers because it highlights the dangers of adopting a ‘kitchen sink’ approach to contract drafting, whereby everything that could potentially be relevant is thrown into the document.
Hojgaard was employed by E.ON to design and build the foundations for a wind farm situated off the UK coast. The foundations consisted of two elements – a monopile and a transition piece, which would in turn connect to a tower, supporting the turbine and blades which were constructed and installed by a different contractor.
The monopile and transition piece were to be held together by a grouted connection which was based on
**excludes LexisPSL Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial.
Existing user? Sign-in
Take a free trial
Take a free trial
0330 161 1234