Clancy Docwra Ltd v E.ON Energy Solutions Ltd

Clancy Docwra Ltd v E.ON Energy Solutions Ltd

CDL's scope of works was defined by the Numbered Documents, expressly excluding certain works. If CDL was instructed to carry out excluded works (removal of soft spots, hand digging, breaking out obstructions, diversion of mains and services), such instructions constituted a Variation under the contract. Clauses 2.1.7 to 2.1.9 did not override the agreed scope of works. CDL was entitled to declarations confirming this construction. Rectification was unnecessary as the contract, properly construed, reflected the parties' agreement.

Parties
Claimant: Clancy Docwra Limited; Defendant: E. ON Energy Solutions Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Declarations granted in favor of CDL on construction of contract; rectification not granted.
Legal Topics
Construction of Contracts, Variation of Contract, Allocation of Risk, Rectification
Contract Law Construction Law Construction of Contracts Variation of Contract Allocation of Risk Rectification

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clancy Docwra Limited

Claimant

E. ON Energy Solutions Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction of the Sub-Contract and scope of works
  2. 2 Entitlement to variation instructions for excluded works
  3. 3 Allocation of risk for ground conditions

Ratio Decidendi

CDL's scope of works was defined by the Numbered Documents, expressly excluding certain works. If CDL was instructed to carry out excluded works (removal of soft spots, hand digging, breaking out obstructions, diversion of mains and services), such instructions constituted a Variation under the contract. Clauses 2.1.7 to 2.1.9 did not override the agreed scope of works. CDL was entitled to declarations confirming this construction. Rectification was unnecessary as the contract, properly construed, reflected the parties' agreement.

Court Disposition

Declarations granted in favor of CDL on construction of contract; rectification not granted.

Orders

  • CDL entitled to have instructions to carry out excluded works treated as Variations under the contract.
  • Declarations granted confirming CDL's entitlement to claim for Relevant Events is not debarred by clauses 2.1.7 to 2.1.9.