John Young & Co (Kelvinhaugh) Ltd v. The Rugby Group Plc [2000] EWHC Technology 36 (19th December, 2000)

John Young & Co (Kelvinhaugh) Ltd v. The Rugby Group Plc [2000] EWHC Technology 36 (19th December, 2000)

The claimant is entitled to payment because the agreed procedure for interim payments was followed, a valid Recommendation for Payment was issued, and the defendant's attempt to rescind the payment was ineffective. Breach of anti-assignment or anti-subcontracting clauses does not bar recovery; the remedy is damages, not forfeiture.

Citation
[2000] EWHC Technology 36
Parties
Purchaser / Defendant: The Rugby Group PLC; Contractor / Claimant: John Young & Co. (Kelvinhaugh) Ltd.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Commercial Construction Contract Dispute / Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant (Young)
Legal Topics
Payment Provisions Under Construction Contracts, Assignment and Sub Contracting Prohibitions, Interpretation of Contract Modifications, Remedies for Breach of Contract
Contract Law Construction Law Payment Provisions Under Construction Contracts Assignment and Sub Contracting Prohibitions Interpretation of Contract Modifications Remedies for Breach of Contract

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Rugby Group PLC

Purchaser / Defendant

John Young & Co. (Kelvinhaugh) Ltd.

Contractor / Claimant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Construction Contract Dispute / Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to payment under the contract as modified by agreement
  2. 2 Whether the application for payment complied with contractual requirements
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's purported rescission of the payment recommendation was effective

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant is entitled to payment because the agreed procedure for interim payments was followed, a valid Recommendation for Payment was issued, and the defendant's attempt to rescind the payment was ineffective. Breach of anti-assignment or anti-subcontracting clauses does not bar recovery; the remedy is damages, not forfeiture.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant (Young)

Orders

  • Defendant to pay claimant £1,145,380.60 plus interest at 2% per annum above the average base rates of London clearing banks from 3 September 2000 until judgment.
  • Permission granted to amend Particulars of Claim, Reply, and Defence as requested.