Sydenhams (Timber Engineering) Ltd. v CHG Holdings Ltd.

Sydenhams (Timber Engineering) Ltd. v CHG Holdings Ltd.

There was a direct contract between Sydenhams and CHG as of 3 October 2003, varied only as to payment mechanism by the 18 December 2003 tripartite agreement, and superseded by a new, freestanding agreement on 20 April 2004 under which CHG was obliged to make direct payments to Sydenhams. The deed of warranty and estoppel arguments raised by CHG did not alter this position. Sydenhams are entitled to payment for the windows and retention monies, less the agreed set-off for defects.

Parties
Claimant/part 20 Defendant: Sydenhams (Timber Engineering) Limited; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: CHG Holdings Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil (construction Dispute) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant (Sydenhams)
Legal Topics
Contract Formation, Variation of Contract, Direct Payment, Subcontracting, Rectification, Estoppel, Collateral Warranty
Contract Law Construction Law Contract Formation Variation of Contract Direct Payment Subcontracting Rectification Estoppel +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sydenhams (Timber Engineering) Limited

Claimant/part 20 Defendant

CHG Holdings Limited

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil (construction Dispute) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a direct contract between Sydenhams and CHG Holdings Limited
  2. 2 Effect of the 18 December 2003 tripartite agreement on payment and contractual relationships
  3. 3 Legal effect of the 20 April 2004 agreement between Sydenhams and CHG

Ratio Decidendi

There was a direct contract between Sydenhams and CHG as of 3 October 2003, varied only as to payment mechanism by the 18 December 2003 tripartite agreement, and superseded by a new, freestanding agreement on 20 April 2004 under which CHG was obliged to make direct payments to Sydenhams. The deed of warranty and estoppel arguments raised by CHG did not alter this position. Sydenhams are entitled to payment for the windows and retention monies, less the agreed set-off for defects.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant (Sydenhams)

Orders

  • CHG to pay Sydenhams £105,750 plus interest from 1 November 2004 for windows
  • CHG to pay Sydenhams £22,636.38 plus interest from 1 August 2004 for retention monies