Bouygues (UK) Ltd v Febrey Structures Ltd

Bouygues (UK) Ltd v Febrey Structures Ltd

Appendix 10 of the Sub-Contract governed the payment dates, but contained an obvious error regarding the Payment Notice date for October 2015, which should be read as 20th November 2015. The Claimant's Notice of 23rd November 2015 was not served in time and was therefore invalid. No timeous Payment Notice or Pay Less Notice was served, entitling the Defendant to payment.

Parties
Claimant: Bouygues (UK) Limited; Defendant: Febrey Structures Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Construction Contract Dispute / Judgment After Hearing of Part 8 Claim and Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Claim dismissed; Counterclaim for payment succeeds
Legal Topics
Payment Notices, Pay Less Notices, Interpretation of Contracts, Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 Compliance
Construction Law Contract Law Payment Notices Pay Less Notices Interpretation of Contracts Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 Compliance

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bouygues (UK) Limited

Claimant

Febrey Structures Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Construction Contract Dispute / Judgment After Hearing of Part 8 Claim and Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Payment Notice and Pay Less Notice served by the Claimant were compliant with the Sub-Contract and the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether Appendix 10 or Clause 21 of the Sub-Contract governed the relevant payment dates
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant's Notice of 23rd November 2015 was valid and timeous

Ratio Decidendi

Appendix 10 of the Sub-Contract governed the payment dates, but contained an obvious error regarding the Payment Notice date for October 2015, which should be read as 20th November 2015. The Claimant's Notice of 23rd November 2015 was not served in time and was therefore invalid. No timeous Payment Notice or Pay Less Notice was served, entitling the Defendant to payment.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; Counterclaim for payment succeeds

Orders

  • The claim is dismissed.
  • The Defendant's counterclaim for payment arising from the failure to serve a timeous notice succeeds.