Bodill & Sons (Contractors) Ltd v Mattu [2007] EWHC 2950 (TCC) (30 November 2007)

Bodill & Sons (Contractors) Ltd v Mattu [2007] EWHC 2950 (TCC) (30 November 2007)

The defendant was at least nominally in breach of trust and contract by failing to pay the retention monies into a properly designated trust account within a reasonable period after the claimant's request. However, as the defendant subsequently complied and gave undertakings to the court to rectify the deficiencies,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 2950 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Bodill & Sons (Contractors) Limited; Defendant: Harmail Singh Mattu
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim / Final Hearing
Outcome
No order made; undertakings accepted in lieu of injunction.
Legal Topics
Retention Monies, Trust Obligations, Injunctions, Designation of Trust Accounts, Breach of Contract, Breach of Trust
Construction Law Trusts Law Contract Law Retention Monies Trust Obligations Injunctions Designation of Trust Accounts Breach of Contract +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bodill & Sons (Contractors) Limited

Claimant

Harmail Singh Mattu

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim / Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was in breach of trust and/or contract for failing to place retention monies in a designated trust account within a reasonable period after request
  2. 2 Whether the account set up by the defendant was sufficiently designated as a trust account as required by the contract
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was entitled to an injunction or further relief

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was at least nominally in breach of trust and contract by failing to pay the retention monies into a properly designated trust account within a reasonable period after the claimant's request. However, as the defendant subsequently complied and gave undertakings to the court to rectify the deficiencies, no further order was necessary.

Court Disposition

No order made; undertakings accepted in lieu of injunction.

Orders

  • Defendant to undertake that the retention monies remain in the account to the best of his knowledge and belief.
  • Defendant to undertake to instruct the bank to re-designate the account as a trust account with Bodill named in the account by 5th December 2007.