CR Construction (UK) Company Ltd v Barclays Bank PLC [2026] EWHC 202 (TCC) (04 February 2026)

CR Construction (UK) Company Ltd v Barclays Bank PLC [2026] EWHC 202 (TCC) (04 February 2026)

The application for an interim injunction fails because the only basis for restraining a bank from paying under a performance bond is fraud, which is not alleged. The demand and certificate were compliant with the bond's requirements. The bond was not discharged by repudiatory breach, and set-off or quantum disputes do not preclude payment under the bond. Damages are an adequate remedy and the balance of convenience strongly favours refusal, including due to the importance of the autonomy principle and market confidence in performance bonds.

Citation
[2026] EWHC 202 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant / Applicant: CR Construction (UK) Company Limited; Defendant / Respondent: Barclays Bank PLC; Intervener: Northern Gateway (FEC) No. 7 Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application (technology and Construction Court) / Judgment on Application for Interim Injunction
Outcome
Application for interim injunction dismissed
Legal Topics
Performance Bonds, Interim Injunctions, Guarantees and Sureties, Repudiatory Breach, Liquidated Damages, Set Off, Demand Guarantees
Construction Law Banking Law Commercial Law Performance Bonds Interim Injunctions Guarantees and Sureties Repudiatory Breach Liquidated Damages +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CR Construction (UK) Company Limited

Claimant / Applicant

Barclays Bank PLC

Defendant / Respondent

Northern Gateway (FEC) No. 7 Limited

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application (technology and Construction Court) / Judgment on Application for Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an interim injunction should be granted to restrain the bank from paying out under a performance bond
  2. 2 Whether the demand under the bond was compliant with its terms
  3. 3 Whether the bond was discharged by repudiatory breach of the underlying contract

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an interim injunction fails because the only basis for restraining a bank from paying under a performance bond is fraud, which is not alleged. The demand and certificate were compliant with the bond's requirements. The bond was not discharged by repudiatory breach, and set-off or quantum disputes do not preclude payment under the bond. Damages are an adequate remedy and the balance of convenience strongly favours refusal, including due to the importance of the autonomy principle and market confidence in performance bonds.

Court Disposition

Application for interim injunction dismissed

Orders

  • Interim injunction refused against Barclays Bank PLC
  • No order requiring return of payment under the counter-guarantee