- Failure to give a payment or pay less notice—a change of approach (Grove Developments v S&T)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Validity of pay less notice
- Enforcement of the adjudication decision
- Adjudication of the ‘true’ value
- LADs notices
- Case details
Construction analysis: In a significant judgment, the court held that an employer was able to challenge by way of further adjudication the amount due to a contractor in respect of an interim application, by reference to the true value of the works—even if the employer had not given a valid payment or pay less notice. In the court’s view, this conclusion was supported by first principles and Court of Appeal authorities, and it described analysis in the earlier decisions of ISG v Seevic and Galliford Try v Estura as ‘erroneous and/or incomplete’. The court also held that a pay less notice was valid even though it specified the basis of calculation by reference to an earlier document, and that the employer’s notices in respect of liquidated damages were valid under the contract (a JCT Design and Build Contract 2011).
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