Irvin v Robertson [2010] EWHC 3723 (TCC) (21 December 2010)

Irvin v Robertson [2010] EWHC 3723 (TCC) (21 December 2010)

There was no concluded subcontract as parties were not in agreement on essential terms including design responsibility, price, and guaranteed maximum price; no agreement to adjudicate disputes existed.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 3723 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Irvin; Defendant: Robertson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim / Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
PFI Contracts, Subcontract Formation, Adjudication Agreements, Design Responsibility
Construction Law Contract Law PFI Contracts Subcontract Formation Adjudication Agreements Design Responsibility

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Irvin

Claimant

Robertson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a concluded subcontract existed between the parties for mechanical and electrical works
  2. 2 Whether the contract was in writing within section 107 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996
  3. 3 Whether there was a freestanding agreement to adjudicate disputes

Ratio Decidendi

There was no concluded subcontract as parties were not in agreement on essential terms including design responsibility, price, and guaranteed maximum price; no agreement to adjudicate disputes existed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed