WW Gear Construction Ltd v McGee Group Ltd [2012] EWHC 1509 (TCC) (01 June 2012)

WW Gear Construction Ltd v McGee Group Ltd [2012] EWHC 1509 (TCC) (01 June 2012)

The proviso at the end of clause 4.6 does not bar claims for loss and expense due to disruption caused by variations if recovery under clause 4.21 is unavailable; the contract prevents double recovery but does not restrict recovery to clause 4.21 alone. The court declined to grant the declaration sought due to the risk of unfairness and interference with the adjudication process.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 1509 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: WW Gear Construction Limited; Defendant: McGee Group Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim for Declaratory Relief / Judgment Following Hearing of Application for Declaration
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Contract Clauses, Valuation of Variations, Loss and Expense Claims, Adjudication Process
Construction Law Contract Law Interpretation of Contract Clauses Valuation of Variations Loss and Expense Claims Adjudication Process

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WW Gear Construction Limited

Claimant

McGee Group Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim for Declaratory Relief / Judgment Following Hearing of Application for Declaration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 4.6 of the Trade Contract bars claims for loss and expense due to disruption caused by variations if not claimed under clause 4.21
  2. 2 Whether the court should grant a declaration during an ongoing adjudication
  3. 3 Interaction between clauses 4.6 and 4.21 regarding recovery of loss and expense

Ratio Decidendi

The proviso at the end of clause 4.6 does not bar claims for loss and expense due to disruption caused by variations if recovery under clause 4.21 is unavailable; the contract prevents double recovery but does not restrict recovery to clause 4.21 alone. The court declined to grant the declaration sought due to the risk of unfairness and interference with the adjudication process.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Application for declaration refused
  • Contents of draft judgment not to be communicated to adjudicator unless both parties agree