Systems Pipework Ltd v Rotary Building Services Ltd [2017] EWHC 3235 (TCC) (12 December 2017)

Systems Pipework Ltd v Rotary Building Services Ltd [2017] EWHC 3235 (TCC) (12 December 2017)

The 2 September 2016 assessment was not a proper notification of the amount due for payment under clause 28.6, as it failed to specify the sum due, did not reference the clause, and required further calculation. Even if it had been a proper notification, the claimant's written dissent by commencing adjudication prevented any deemed agreement or binding effect under the contract.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 3235 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Systems Pipework Limited; Defendant: Rotary Building Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 December 2017
Procedural Posture
CPR Part 8 Proceedings / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant; declarations granted as sought.
Legal Topics
Final Account Procedures, Notification Requirements, Interpretation of Construction Contracts, Adjudication, Time Limits and Loss of Rights
Construction Law Contract Law Final Account Procedures Notification Requirements Interpretation of Construction Contracts Adjudication Time Limits and Loss of Rights

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

Parties

Systems Pipework Limited

Claimant

Rotary Building Services Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

CPR Part 8 Proceedings / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What notification was required under clause 28.6 for it to be binding?
  2. 2 Was the 2 September 2016 assessment a proper notification under clause 28.6?
  3. 3 If proper notification was sent, was there valid dissent by the claimant?

Ratio Decidendi

The 2 September 2016 assessment was not a proper notification of the amount due for payment under clause 28.6, as it failed to specify the sum due, did not reference the clause, and required further calculation. Even if it had been a proper notification, the claimant's written dissent by commencing adjudication prevented any deemed agreement or binding effect under the contract.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant; declarations granted as sought.

Orders

  • Declaration that the 2 September 2016 assessment was not a proper notification under clause 28.6.
  • Declaration that, if it was a notification, the claimant's dissent prevented any deemed agreement or binding effect.