Inframatrix Investments Ltd v Dean Construction Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 64 (03 February 2012)

Inframatrix Investments Ltd v Dean Construction Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 64 (03 February 2012)

The limitation clause in the contract provided that no action could be brought more than one year after the last performance of services by the contractor. The Court held that the last performance of services was in February 2009, and that subsequent meetings and inspections were part of without prejudice negotiations and not contractual performance. Therefore, the claim was barred by the limitation clause and the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2012] EWCA Civ 64
Parties
Claimant: Inframatrix Investments Limited; Defendant: Dean Construction Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Summary Judgment in the High Court (technology and Construction Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Limitation Clauses, Interpretation of Contracts, Summary Judgment, Construction Agreements
Contract Law Construction Law Limitation Clauses Interpretation of Contracts Summary Judgment Construction Agreements

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Inframatrix Investments Limited

Claimant

Dean Construction Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Summary Judgment in the High Court (technology and Construction Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contractual limitation clause barred the claimant's claim for breach of contract
  2. 2 Whether attendance at a meeting and inspection in March 2010 constituted performance of services under the contract, restarting the limitation period

Ratio Decidendi

The limitation clause in the contract provided that no action could be brought more than one year after the last performance of services by the contractor. The Court held that the last performance of services was in February 2009, and that subsequent meetings and inspections were part of without prejudice negotiations and not contractual performance. Therefore, the claim was barred by the limitation clause and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.