Taylor Woodrow Holdings Ltd v George Wimpey Southern Counties Ltd Rev 1

Taylor Woodrow Holdings Ltd v George Wimpey Southern Counties Ltd Rev 1

The court held that the effect of the contractual correspondence was to remove the Contractor’s qualification regarding unforeseen structural works (TC1), except for works to the external façade, which were covered by a provisional sum of £180,000.00. Therefore, the Employers did not retain the risk of unforeseen...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Taylor Woodrow Holdings Limited; Claimant: George Wimpey Southern Counties Limited; Defendant: Barnes & Elliott Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Application Under Arbitration Act 1996, Section 45 / Judgment on Preliminary Question of Law
Outcome
Application granted; preliminary objection dismissed; question of law determined
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Contract Terms, Allocation of Risk in Construction Contracts, Arbitration Procedure Under Section 45 Arbitration Act 1996
Arbitration Construction Law Contract Law Interpretation of Contract Terms Allocation of Risk in Construction Contracts Arbitration Procedure Under Section 45 Arbitration Act 1996

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Taylor Woodrow Holdings Limited

Claimant

George Wimpey Southern Counties Limited

Claimant

Barnes & Elliott Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application Under Arbitration Act 1996, Section 45 / Judgment on Preliminary Question of Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Employers retain the risk of unforeseen works to the existing structure of the building which might be necessary before or as a consequence of the specified works?
  2. 2 Did the unforeseen structural works constitute a change in the Employers’ Requirements requiring evaluation under Clause 12 of the JCT WCD?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the effect of the contractual correspondence was to remove the Contractor’s qualification regarding unforeseen structural works (TC1), except for works to the external façade, which were covered by a provisional sum of £180,000.00. Therefore, the Employers did not retain the risk of unforeseen works to the existing structure, save for those works to the external façade subject to the provisional sum.

Court Disposition

Application granted; preliminary objection dismissed; question of law determined

Orders

  • The court determines that the Employers did not retain the risk of unforeseen works to the existing structure, save for those works to the external façade which are the subject of the provisional sum of £180,000.00.
  • The Contractor’s preliminary objection to the proceedings is dismissed.