C Spencer Ltd v MW High Tech Projects UK Ltd

C Spencer Ltd v MW High Tech Projects UK Ltd

MW’s payment notice 35, which set out the sum considered due and the basis of calculation, constituted a valid payment notice under the Subcontract and the Act, as the parties had agreed a single payment regime for both construction and non-construction operations. There was no requirement to separately identify sums for construction operations in the notice. CSL’s claim for payment under section 111 of the Act therefore failed.

Parties
Claimant: C Spencer Limited; Defendant: MW High Tech Projects UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil (construction Dispute) / Judgment on Part 8 Claim
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Payment Notices, Hybrid Contracts, Statutory Payment Regime, Estoppel by Convention, Set Off and Counterclaim
Construction Law Contract Law Payment Notices Hybrid Contracts Statutory Payment Regime Estoppel by Convention Set Off and Counterclaim

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 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C Spencer Limited

Claimant

MW High Tech Projects UK Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (construction Dispute) / Judgment on Part 8 Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether MW issued a valid payment notice under the Act and Subcontract in response to CSL’s application no.32
  2. 2 Whether CSL is estopped from relying on its construction argument
  3. 3 If MW failed to issue a valid payment notice, whether CSL is entitled to rely on its payment application as the notified sum under the Act

Ratio Decidendi

MW’s payment notice 35, which set out the sum considered due and the basis of calculation, constituted a valid payment notice under the Subcontract and the Act, as the parties had agreed a single payment regime for both construction and non-construction operations. There was no requirement to separately identify sums for construction operations in the notice. CSL’s claim for payment under section 111 of the Act therefore failed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed