Alstom Signalling Ltd. (t/a Alstom Transport Information Solutions) v Jarvis Facilities Ltd [2004] EWHC 1285 (TCC) (28 May 2004)

Alstom Signalling Ltd. (t/a Alstom Transport Information Solutions) v Jarvis Facilities Ltd [2004] EWHC 1285 (TCC) (28 May 2004)

Alstom's questions and queries regarding Application 32 were not sufficiently specific and focused to justify withholding payment under Clause 2.4 of Schedule F. The contract did not provide an effective final date for payment, so the statutory Scheme applied, requiring payment within 17 days of due date. Alstom failed to serve a valid withholding notice and was in breach of contract and statute. Jarvis was entitled to payment as applied for, subject to agreed amendments.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 1285 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant/defendant: Alstom Signalling Limited (trading as Alstom Transport Information Solutions); Defendant/claimant: Jarvis Facilities Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Construction Contract Dispute / Post Adjudication, High Court Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for Jarvis Facilities Limited
Legal Topics
Payment Provisions, Adjudication, Withholding Notices, Final Account, Pain/gain Share, Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996
Construction Law Contract Law Payment Provisions Adjudication Withholding Notices Final Account Pain/gain Share Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alstom Signalling Limited (trading as Alstom Transport Information Solutions)

Claimant/defendant

Jarvis Facilities Limited

Defendant/claimant

Procedural Posture

Construction Contract Dispute / Post Adjudication, High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Alstom was entitled to withhold payment from Jarvis under Application 32
  2. 2 Whether Alstom's questions and queries were sufficiently specific under the contract
  3. 3 Whether Alstom complied with statutory requirements for withholding notices

Ratio Decidendi

Alstom's questions and queries regarding Application 32 were not sufficiently specific and focused to justify withholding payment under Clause 2.4 of Schedule F. The contract did not provide an effective final date for payment, so the statutory Scheme applied, requiring payment within 17 days of due date. Alstom failed to serve a valid withholding notice and was in breach of contract and statute. Jarvis was entitled to payment as applied for, subject to agreed amendments.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Jarvis Facilities Limited

Orders

  • Alstom to pay Jarvis £1,328,250 plus interest as determined
  • Payment to be made within statutory timeframe