Aceramais Holdings Ltd v Hadleigh Partnerships Ltd

Aceramais Holdings Ltd v Hadleigh Partnerships Ltd

The court found that Aceramais and HPL contracted on the basis of the JCT 2005 Design & Build standard form of contract dated 14 March 2008, which constituted a contract in writing within the meaning of section 107 HGCRA. The claim stood struck out due to non-compliance with a disclosure order, and even if not struck out, the court would have declined to grant the declaration sought as the parties had contracted in writing.

Parties
Claimant: Aceramais Holdings Limited; Defendant: Hadleigh Partnerships Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil (construction Dispute) / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim struck out; declaration refused
Legal Topics
Written Contracts, Adjudication, Disclosure, Declaratory Relief
Construction Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Written Contracts Adjudication Disclosure Declaratory Relief

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

Parties

Aceramais Holdings Limited

Claimant

Hadleigh Partnerships Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (construction Dispute) / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a contract in writing between Aceramais and HPL within the meaning of section 107 Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA)
  2. 2 Whether the claim stands struck out for failure to comply with a disclosure order
  3. 3 Whether the court should grant declaratory relief as sought by Aceramais

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Aceramais and HPL contracted on the basis of the JCT 2005 Design & Build standard form of contract dated 14 March 2008, which constituted a contract in writing within the meaning of section 107 HGCRA. The claim stood struck out due to non-compliance with a disclosure order, and even if not struck out, the court would have declined to grant the declaration sought as the parties had contracted in writing.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out; declaration refused

Orders

  • The claim is struck out for failure to comply with the disclosure order of 17 April 2009.
  • The declaration sought by Aceramais is refused.