Balfour Beatty Regional Construction Ltd v Grove Developments Ltd

Balfour Beatty Regional Construction Ltd v Grove Developments Ltd

The contract, as amended by the Tumber schedule, provided for only 23 interim payments up to the contractual date for practical completion. There was no express or implied term entitling BB to further interim payments after valuation 23. The contract satisfied the requirements of sections 109 and 110 of the 1996 Act, so the Scheme did not apply. No separate agreement for further interim payments was reached. Therefore, BB was not entitled to interim payments after valuation 23.

Parties
Defendant/appellant: Balfour Beatty Regional Construction Limited; Claimant/respondent: Grove Developments Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Technology and Construction Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interim Payments, Contract Interpretation, Implied Terms, Statutory Scheme for Construction Contracts
Construction Law Contract Law Interim Payments Contract Interpretation Implied Terms Statutory Scheme for 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Balfour Beatty Regional Construction Limited

Defendant/appellant

Grove Developments Limited

Claimant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Technology and Construction Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract as amended provided for interim payments after valuation 23
  2. 2 Whether the 1996 Act and the Scheme for Construction Contracts applied to entitle the contractor to further interim payments
  3. 3 Whether a separate agreement for interim payments after valuation 23 was reached

Ratio Decidendi

The contract, as amended by the Tumber schedule, provided for only 23 interim payments up to the contractual date for practical completion. There was no express or implied term entitling BB to further interim payments after valuation 23. The contract satisfied the requirements of sections 109 and 110 of the 1996 Act, so the Scheme did not apply. No separate agreement for further interim payments was reached. Therefore, BB was not entitled to interim payments after valuation 23.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Declaration that the Defendant has no contractual right to make Interim Application no.24 (or any subsequent application) and has no right to be paid in respect thereof.