EMCOR Drake and Scull Ltd. v Sir Robert McaLpine Ltd. [2004] EWCA Civ 1733 (21 December 2004)

EMCOR Drake and Scull Ltd. v Sir Robert McaLpine Ltd. [2004] EWCA Civ 1733 (21 December 2004)

No binding contract was formed obliging EDS to carry out the whole of the M&E works for £34.25 million; work was performed under a series of limited-value orders, and the letter of 20 August 2001 did not constitute a concluded contract for the whole works.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 1733
Parties
Claimant/respondent: EMCOR Drake and Scull Limited; Defendant/appellant: Sir Robert McAlpine Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Preliminary Issues Determination in Technology and Construction Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Formation of Contract, Preliminary Agreements, Construction Sub Contracts, Payment Terms, Repudiatory Breach, Costs Orders
Construction Law Contract Law Formation of Contract Preliminary Agreements Construction Sub Contracts Payment Terms Repudiatory Breach Costs Orders

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

Parties

EMCOR Drake and Scull Limited

Claimant/respondent

Sir Robert McAlpine Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Preliminary Issues Determination in Technology and Construction Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether EDS was contractually bound to carry out the whole of the M&E works for £34.25 million
  2. 2 Whether a binding contract for the whole works was formed by the letter of 20 August 2001 and related orders
  3. 3 Whether work was performed under a series of limited orders or a single overarching contract

Ratio Decidendi

No binding contract was formed obliging EDS to carry out the whole of the M&E works for £34.25 million; work was performed under a series of limited-value orders, and the letter of 20 August 2001 did not constitute a concluded contract for the whole works.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant to pay Respondent's costs in the sum of £38,000 within 14 days
  • Application for permission to appeal order for costs refused