Bouygues (UK) Ltd v Febrey Structures Ltd [2016] EWHC 1333 (TCC) (10 June 2016)

Bouygues (UK) Ltd v Febrey Structures Ltd [2016] EWHC 1333 (TCC) (10 June 2016)

Appendix 10, as incorporated and construed in light of the parties' agreement and the contract documents, governed the payment notice regime. The Payment Notice date for October 2015 should be read as 20 November 2015, not 23 November 2015. The claimant's notice was served out of time and was therefore ineffective. No timeous Payment Notice or Pay Less Notice was served, entitling the defendant to payment of its application.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1333 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Bouygues (UK) Limited; Defendant: Febrey Structures Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim and Summary Judgment Application / Judgment After Hearing on Declarations and Enforcement
Outcome
Claim dismissed; counterclaim for payment succeeds.
Legal Topics
Payment Notices Under Construction Contracts, Interpretation of Contract Terms, Compliance With Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, Adjudication Enforcement
Construction Law Contract Law Payment Notices Under Construction Contracts Interpretation of Contract Terms Compliance With Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 Adjudication Enforcement

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

Parties

Bouygues (UK) Limited

Claimant

Febrey Structures Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim and Summary Judgment Application / Judgment After Hearing on Declarations and Enforcement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's Payment Notice or Pay Less Notice was served in time under the contract and the 1996 Act
  2. 2 Whether Appendix 10 or Clause 21 governs the payment notice regime
  3. 3 How to construe conflicting or non-compliant payment provisions in the contract

Ratio Decidendi

Appendix 10, as incorporated and construed in light of the parties' agreement and the contract documents, governed the payment notice regime. The Payment Notice date for October 2015 should be read as 20 November 2015, not 23 November 2015. The claimant's notice was served out of time and was therefore ineffective. No timeous Payment Notice or Pay Less Notice was served, entitling the defendant to payment of its application.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; counterclaim for payment succeeds.

Orders

  • Declarations sought by claimant refused.
  • Defendant entitled to payment arising from claimant's failure to serve a timeous notice.