WW Gear Construction Ltd v McGee Group Ltd

WW Gear Construction Ltd v McGee Group Ltd

The proviso at the end of clause 4.6 does not bar claims for direct loss and/or expense under that clause merely because such claims could also be made under clause 4.21; it only prevents double recovery. If the Contractor cannot recover under clause 4.21 (for example, due to failure to comply with notice provisions), recovery under clause 4.6 is not precluded if the conditions of that clause are satisfied. The application for a declaration is dismissed as the declaration sought does not reflect the true construction of the contract, and it is not appropriate for the court to intervene during the ongoing adjudication.

Parties
Claimant: WW Gear Construction Limited; Defendant: McGee Group Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil (construction Contract Dispute) / Judgment on Application for Declaratory Relief
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Contract Clauses, Declaratory Relief, Adjudication Process, Loss and Expense Claims, Valuation of Variations
Construction Law Contract Law Interpretation of Contract Clauses Declaratory Relief Adjudication Process Loss and Expense Claims Valuation of Variations

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

Parties

WW Gear Construction Limited

Claimant

McGee Group Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (construction Contract Dispute) / Judgment on Application for Declaratory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proviso at the end of clause 4.6 of the Trade Contract bars claims for direct loss and/or expense under that clause when such claims could be made under clause 4.21
  2. 2 Whether the court should grant a declaration during an ongoing adjudication process

Ratio Decidendi

The proviso at the end of clause 4.6 does not bar claims for direct loss and/or expense under that clause merely because such claims could also be made under clause 4.21; it only prevents double recovery. If the Contractor cannot recover under clause 4.21 (for example, due to failure to comply with notice provisions), recovery under clause 4.6 is not precluded if the conditions of that clause are satisfied. The application for a declaration is dismissed as the declaration sought does not reflect the true construction of the contract, and it is not appropriate for the court to intervene during the ongoing adjudication.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed