Court of Appeal confirms no interim payments after schedule expired (Balfour Beatty v Grove)

Table of contents

• Original news
• What are the practical implications of this case?
• What was the background?
• What did the court decide?
• No express or implied contractual entitlement to interim payments after the payment schedule ended
• Did the HGCRA 1996 and the Scheme enable Balfour Beatty to recover further interim payments?
• No separate agreement for further interim payments
• Case details

Article summary

Construction analysis: The Court of Appeal has upheld, by a majority of two to one, the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) decision that a contractor was not entitled to interim payments after the final date in a schedule specifying dates in the interim payment process (the schedule) had elapsed. The Court of Appeal confirmed that there was no express or implied term extending the schedule and that the contract was not non-compliant with section 109 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA 1996) simply because the interim payment regime did not cover the entirety of the works.