Energy Works (Hull) Limited v MW High Tech Projects UK Limited & Anor

Energy Works (Hull) Limited v MW High Tech Projects UK Limited & Anor

EWH was entitled to terminate the EPC contract for Contractor's Default under clause 44.1(c) as the Delay Damages Cap was exceeded and M+W was not entitled to any extension of time. EWH was also entitled to terminate for repudiatory breach at common law. EWH is entitled to liquidated damages for delay up to termination, and to substantial damages for post-termination completion and defects, subject to contractual exclusions and limitations. M+W's counterclaim is dismissed. Outotec is not liable in contribution for most defects due to lack of notification under the subcontract, but would be liable for certain notified defects if proven. Abatement remains available to M+W as a defence to...

Parties
Claimant: Energy Works (Hull) Limited; Defendant: MW High Tech Projects UK Limited; Defendant: M+W Group GmbH; Third Party: Outotec (USA) Inc.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Commercial Construction Dispute (epc Contract) / Final Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant (EWH); counterclaim dismissed; third-party contribution claims largely dismissed; damages and orders as specified.
Legal Topics
Termination for Contractor's Default, Liquidated Damages, Extension of Time, Defects Liability, Contribution Claims, Assignment of Contractual Rights, Abatement, Remedies for Breach, Parent Company Guarantee
Contract Law Construction Law Commercial Law Termination for Contractor's Default Liquidated Damages Extension of Time Defects Liability Contribution Claims +4 more

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 6 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 22
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Energy Works (Hull) Limited

Claimant

MW High Tech Projects UK Limited

Defendant

M+W Group GmbH

Defendant

Outotec (USA) Inc.

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Commercial Construction Dispute (epc Contract) / Final Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether EWH was entitled to terminate the EPC contract for Contractor's Default or repudiation; Whether M+W was entitled to an extension of time; Whether EWH is entitled to liquidated damages and damages for defects; Whether M+W is entitled to a counterclaim; Whether Outotec is liable to contribute to M+W for defects under the subcontract; Effect of assignment of subcontract; Scope of abatement as a defence.

Ratio Decidendi

EWH was entitled to terminate the EPC contract for Contractor's Default under clause 44.1(c) as the Delay Damages Cap was exceeded and M+W was not entitled to any extension of time. EWH was also entitled to terminate for repudiatory breach at common law. EWH is entitled to liquidated damages for delay up to termination, and to substantial damages for post-termination completion and defects, subject to contractual exclusions and limitations. M+W's counterclaim is dismissed. Outotec is not liable in contribution for most defects due to lack of notification under the subcontract, but would be liable for certain notified defects if proven. Abatement remains available to M+W as a defence to...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant (EWH); counterclaim dismissed; third-party contribution claims largely dismissed; damages and orders as specified.

Orders

  • EWH entitled to terminate EPC contract for Contractor's Default and/or repudiation;
  • EWH awarded liquidated damages for delay (£23,077,331.70);