BNP Paribas Depository Services Limited & Anor v Briggs & Forrester Engineering Services Limited

BNP Paribas Depository Services Limited & Anor v Briggs & Forrester Engineering Services Limited

The contract, as interpreted in light of its express terms, incorporated documents, and the factual matrix, placed full responsibility on B&F for all asbestos surveys and removal works necessary for the project, as well as for any structural strengthening works required to complete the stair pressurisation installation. The inclusion of the Woods quotation and Eton RAS did not carve out or limit this responsibility. B&F was not entitled to suspend or terminate the contract for employer prevention/default, as the suspension of works was caused by B&F's own failure to perform its contractual obligations. B&F's purported termination was a repudiatory breach, entitling BNP to treat the...

Parties
Claimant: BNP Paribas Depositary Services Limited; Claimant: BNP Paribas Depositary Services (Jersey) Limited; Defendant: Briggs & Forrester Engineering Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil (construction Contract Dispute) / Judgment After Shorter Trials Scheme Trial
Outcome
Judgment for Claimant (BNP); declarations granted
Legal Topics
Contract Interpretation, Design and Build Contracts, Asbestos Removal Obligations, Termination of Contract, Repudiatory Breach
Construction Law Contract Law Contract Interpretation Design and Build Contracts Asbestos Removal Obligations Termination of Contract Repudiatory Breach

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BNP Paribas Depositary Services Limited

Claimant

BNP Paribas Depositary Services (Jersey) Limited

Claimant

Briggs & Forrester Engineering Services Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (construction Contract Dispute) / Judgment After Shorter Trials Scheme Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contractor (B&F) was contractually responsible for further refurbishment asbestos surveys (RASs) and associated asbestos removal works (ARWs) beyond those identified in the Woods quotation and Eton RAS.
  2. 2 Whether the contractor was responsible for structural strengthening works to riser floors discovered during the project.
  3. 3 Whether the contractor was entitled to suspend and terminate the contract under clause 8.9.2/8.9.3 based on the employer's alleged prevention/default.

Ratio Decidendi

The contract, as interpreted in light of its express terms, incorporated documents, and the factual matrix, placed full responsibility on B&F for all asbestos surveys and removal works necessary for the project, as well as for any structural strengthening works required to complete the stair pressurisation installation. The inclusion of the Woods quotation and Eton RAS did not carve out or limit this responsibility. B&F was not entitled to suspend or terminate the contract for employer prevention/default, as the suspension of works was caused by B&F's own failure to perform its contractual obligations. B&F's purported termination was a repudiatory breach, entitling BNP to treat the...

Court Disposition

Judgment for Claimant (BNP); declarations granted

Orders

  • Declaration that Briggs had no entitlement to serve the Purported Suspension Notice nor the Purported Termination Notice.
  • Declaration that Briggs’ service of those notices, separately or together with its failure and refusal to proceed with the Works in accordance with the Contract in 2023, amounted to a repudiatory breach of the Contract.