Carillion Construction Limited (t/a Crown House Engineering) v Ballast Plc [2001] EWCA Civ 1098 (12 July 2001)

Carillion Construction Limited (t/a Crown House Engineering) v Ballast Plc [2001] EWCA Civ 1098 (12 July 2001)

The contract between Ballast and Crown House was concluded at the meeting on 8th November 1996, but Crown House was only obliged to carry out the works set out in its revised specification of 12th August 1996, not all the Employer's Requirements. There was no agreement to expand the scope of works beyond the revised specification for the fixed price tendered.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1098
Parties
Respondent/claimant: Carillion Construction Limited (trading as Crown House Engineering); Appellant/defendant: Ballast Plc (Formerly Ballast Wiltshier Plc)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Queen's Bench Division on Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs here and below.
Legal Topics
Formation of Contract, Scope of Contractual Obligations, Incorporation of Terms, Interpretation of Construction Contracts
Contract Law Construction Law Formation of Contract Scope of Contractual Obligations Incorporation of Terms Interpretation of Construction Contracts

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carillion Construction Limited (trading as Crown House Engineering)

Respondent/claimant

Ballast Plc (Formerly Ballast Wiltshier Plc)

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Queen's Bench Division on Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When was the subcontract between Ballast and Crown House concluded?
  2. 2 Was Crown House obliged to comply with all the Employer's Requirements or only those in its specification?
  3. 3 Were the Main Contract Terms incorporated into the Sub-contract?

Ratio Decidendi

The contract between Ballast and Crown House was concluded at the meeting on 8th November 1996, but Crown House was only obliged to carry out the works set out in its revised specification of 12th August 1996, not all the Employer's Requirements. There was no agreement to expand the scope of works beyond the revised specification for the fixed price tendered.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs here and below.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs awarded to respondent at both trial and appeal