- Court considers issues under maintenance contract (Amey v Cumbria)
- Original news
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Global claim (paras [17.11]–[17.17])
- Account production costs (paras [22.1]–[22.8])
- Rectification costs/betterment (paras [25.1]–[25.38])
- Case details
Construction analysis: The court took a common sense approach in order to determine a large number of disputed items arising under a roads maintenance contract (based on NEC2). It also held that the contractor’s claim for additional sub-contracting costs was an illegitimate global claim, that the contractor’s costs of producing accounts (including the final account) were not recoverable, and that the employer could not claim the costs of remedying visual defects as the court was not convinced that the works were necessary.
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