Midland Expressway Ltd v Carillion Construction Ltd & Ors (No. 2)

Midland Expressway Ltd v Carillion Construction Ltd & Ors (No. 2)

CAMBBA's claim for additional payment in respect of department's change 11 constitutes a construction dispute under the D&C contract and the 1996 Act. Contractual provisions purporting to bar or postpone adjudication or impose pay-when-paid conditions are ineffective under sections 108 and 113 of the 1996 Act. CAMBBA are entitled to proceed with adjudication and to claim interim payment from MEL, regardless of the status of the dispute resolution under the concession agreement. MEL is not entitled to the declarations or injunctions sought.

Parties
Claimant: Midland Expressway Limited; Defendant: Carillion Construction Limited; Defendant: Alfred McAlpine Construction Limited; Defendant: Balfour Beatty Group Limited; Defendant: AMEC Capital Projects Limited; Defendant: John E Price
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Claim for Declarations and Injunctions / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Adjudication, Interim Payments, Statutory Interpretation, Contractual Dispute Resolution, Pay When Paid Clauses
Construction Law Contract Law Adjudication Interim Payments Statutory Interpretation Contractual Dispute Resolution Pay When Paid Clauses

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Midland Expressway Limited

Claimant

Carillion Construction Limited

Defendant

Alfred McAlpine Construction Limited

Defendant

Balfour Beatty Group Limited

Defendant

AMEC Capital Projects Limited

Defendant

John E Price

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Claim for Declarations and Injunctions / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is there a construction dispute between CAMBBA and MEL?
  2. 2 Does clause 7 of the D&C contract prevent CAMBBA from pursuing their adjudication claim at the present time?
  3. 3 Are CAMBBA entitled to press on with their claim for interim payment against MEL before the dispute resolution procedure under the concession agreement has been fully operated?

Ratio Decidendi

CAMBBA's claim for additional payment in respect of department's change 11 constitutes a construction dispute under the D&C contract and the 1996 Act. Contractual provisions purporting to bar or postpone adjudication or impose pay-when-paid conditions are ineffective under sections 108 and 113 of the 1996 Act. CAMBBA are entitled to proceed with adjudication and to claim interim payment from MEL, regardless of the status of the dispute resolution under the concession agreement. MEL is not entitled to the declarations or injunctions sought.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed

Orders

  • MEL's claim for declarations and injunctions is dismissed.
  • CAMBBA are entitled to proceed with adjudication.