- 'Construction operations' and the impact of hire purchase agreements (Fahstone v Biesse Group UK)
- Practical implications
- Was Fahstone a proper party to the contract?
- Had the parties entered into a construction contract?
- Court details
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.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial