Legal News

'Construction operations' and the impact of hire purchase agreements (Fahstone v Biesse Group UK)

Published on: 20 January 2016
Published by: LexisPSL
  • 'Construction operations' and the impact of hire purchase agreements (Fahstone v Biesse Group UK)
  • Practical implications
  • Facts
  • Was Fahstone a proper party to the contract?
  • Had the parties entered into a construction contract?
  • Court details

Article summary

Dispute Resolution analysis: Edwards-Stuart J has refused summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator’s decision on the basis that there was a triable issue as to whether a structure formed part of land and so fell within the definition of a ‘construction operation’ under section 105 of the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA 1996). The structure in question was a large woodworking machine and the issue was whether it was in fact fixed to the building in which it was housed. The judgment draws on decisions in Spicer and Gibson Lea, which perhaps can be regarded as opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of whether something is a structure or simply fixed to the ground for stability reasons. or take a trial to read the full analysis.

Popular documents