Rochford Construction Ltd v Kilhan Construction Ltd [2020] EWHC 941 (TCC) (12 March 2020)

Rochford Construction Ltd v Kilhan Construction Ltd [2020] EWHC 941 (TCC) (12 March 2020)

The subcontract did not provide an adequate or workable mechanism for determining the due date or final date for payment, particularly in the absence of the payment schedule and clear provisions regarding invoices and payment certificates. The relevant provisions of the Scheme for Construction Contracts 1998 must...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 941 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Rochford Construction Limited; Defendant: Kilhan Construction Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim (technology & Construction Court) / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Payment Provisions Under Construction Contracts, Interpretation of Contractual Terms, Application of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, Scheme for Construction Contracts 1998, Adjudication Enforcement
Construction Law Contract Law Payment Provisions Under Construction Contracts Interpretation of Contractual Terms Application of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 Scheme for Construction Contracts 1998 Adjudication Enforcement

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 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rochford Construction Limited

Claimant

Kilhan Construction Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim (technology & Construction Court) / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the subcontract provided an adequate mechanism for determining due dates and final dates for payment under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA)
  2. 2 Whether the Scheme for Construction Contracts 1998 should be implied into the subcontract
  3. 3 Whether the adjudicator's decision regarding the due date and final date for payment was correct

Ratio Decidendi

The subcontract did not provide an adequate or workable mechanism for determining the due date or final date for payment, particularly in the absence of the payment schedule and clear provisions regarding invoices and payment certificates. The relevant provisions of the Scheme for Construction Contracts 1998 must therefore be implied. The adjudicator was correct to find that the due date was the date of the claim (20 May 2019) and that the final date for payment was determined by the Scheme. Rochford's claim for declarations and repayment is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Rochford's claim for declarations and repayment is dismissed.