Dawnus Construction Holdings v Amey LG Ltd [2017] EWHC B13 (TCC) (26 January 2017)

Dawnus Construction Holdings v Amey LG Ltd [2017] EWHC B13 (TCC) (26 January 2017)

Clause 63.2 of the Main Contract, requiring service of a notice of dissatisfaction as a condition precedent to litigation, is incorporated into the Services Agreement by virtue of recital (3), as there is no conflict between this clause and the Services Agreement's adjudication provisions. The restriction on...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] EWHC B13 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Dawnus Construction Holdings; Defendant: Amey LG Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim (construction Contract Interpretation) / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed; question answered in the affirmative for the defendant.
Legal Topics
Contract Interpretation, Incorporation of Terms, Adjudication Under Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, Condition Precedent to Litigation, Dispute Resolution Clauses
Construction Law Contract Law Contract Interpretation Incorporation of Terms Adjudication Under Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 Condition Precedent to Litigation Dispute Resolution Clauses

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dawnus Construction Holdings

Claimant

Amey LG Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim (construction Contract Interpretation) / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether recital (3) of the Services Agreement incorporates clause 63 of the Main Contract, imposing a condition precedent (notice of dissatisfaction) before litigation of adjudicated disputes is permitted.

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 63.2 of the Main Contract, requiring service of a notice of dissatisfaction as a condition precedent to litigation, is incorporated into the Services Agreement by virtue of recital (3), as there is no conflict between this clause and the Services Agreement's adjudication provisions. The restriction on litigation is clear, unambiguous, and commercially sensible, and does not infringe statutory adjudication rights.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; question answered in the affirmative for the defendant.

Orders

  • It is declared that recital (3) of the Services Agreement incorporates clause 63 of the Main Contract, such that service of a notice of dissatisfaction is a condition precedent to litigation of matters previously adjudicated.