Rupert Morgan Building Services (Llc) Ltd. v Jervis & Anor

Rupert Morgan Building Services (Llc) Ltd. v Jervis & Anor

Where a construction contract provides for payment upon an architect's certificate, and no notice of intention to withhold payment is served within the prescribed period, the client must pay the certified sum immediately. Section 111(1) is a cash-flow provision and does not make the certificate conclusive as to the parties' ultimate rights; disputes as to overpayment or defective work can be resolved subsequently, but do not justify withholding payment absent a proper notice.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Rupert Morgan Building Services (LLC) Ltd; Defendant/appellant: David Jervis; Defendant/appellant: Harriet Jervis
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Winchester County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Withholding Payment Under Construction Contracts, Interpretation of S.111(1) Housing Grants (construction and Regeneration) Act 1996, Effect of Interim and Final Certificates, Cash Flow in Building Contracts
Construction Law Contract Law Withholding Payment Under Construction Contracts Interpretation of S.111(1) Housing Grants (construction and Regeneration) Act 1996 Effect of Interim and Final Certificates Cash Flow in Building 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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rupert Morgan Building Services (LLC) Ltd

Claimant/respondent

David Jervis

Defendant/appellant

Harriet Jervis

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Winchester County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to serve a notice of intention to withhold payment under s.111(1) of the Housing Grants (Construction and Regeneration) Act 1996 prevents the client from withholding payment of sums certified by the architect under a construction contract.
  2. 2 Whether the sum certified by the architect is conclusive or subject to later adjustment.

Ratio Decidendi

Where a construction contract provides for payment upon an architect's certificate, and no notice of intention to withhold payment is served within the prescribed period, the client must pay the certified sum immediately. Section 111(1) is a cash-flow provision and does not make the certificate conclusive as to the parties' ultimate rights; disputes as to overpayment or defective work can be resolved subsequently, but do not justify withholding payment absent a proper notice.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed