Bodill & Sons (Contractors) Ltd v Mattu

The defendant was nominally in breach of trust and contract for failing to promptly set up a designated trust account for retention monies and for insufficient account designation, but undertakings offered to remedy these breaches were sufficient and no further order was necessary.

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 as sufficient remedy.
Legal Topics: Retention Monies, Trust Obligations, Contractual Breach, Injunctions

Construction Law Trust Law Contract Law Retention Monies Trust Obligations Contractual Breach Injunctions

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4

Parties

Bodill & Sons (Contractors) Limited

Claimant

Harmail Singh Mattu

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim / Final Hearing

Legal Issues

1 Whether the defendant was in breach of trust and contract by failing to set up a designated trust account for retention monies
2 Whether the account designation met contractual and trust requirements
3 Whether the claimant was entitled to an injunction or other relief

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

No order made; undertakings accepted as sufficient remedy.

Orders

Defendant to undertake that retention monies remain in the account.
Defendant to instruct the bank to re-designate the account as a trust account with Bodill named by 5th December 2007.