Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd v Severfield - Rowen Structures Ltd [2012] EWHC 3652 (TCC) (21 December 2012)

Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd v Severfield - Rowen Structures Ltd [2012] EWHC 3652 (TCC) (21 December 2012)

The Court found that the June programme was not contractually binding, but the December programme reflected SRS's requirements and was accepted by conduct. CBUK was responsible for delays in fabrication and delivery, and SRS was entitled to recover reasonable acceleration and defect rectification costs as contra charges. CBUK was entitled to payment for substantiated variations but not for unsubstantiated claims or loss of productivity.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 3652 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Cleveland Bridge UK Limited; Defendant: Severfield – Rowen Structures Limited (formerly Severfield-Reeve Structures Limited)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Commercial Construction Dispute / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for SRS with set-off of contra charges against sums due to CBUK.
Legal Topics
Delay in Performance, Variation Claims, Quality of Work, Contra Charges, Acceleration Costs
Construction Law Contract Law Delay in Performance Variation Claims Quality of Work Contra Charges Acceleration Costs

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cleveland Bridge UK Limited

Claimant

Severfield – Rowen Structures Limited (formerly Severfield-Reeve Structures Limited)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Construction Dispute / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether CBUK was contractually bound to the June or December programme
  2. 2 Whether delays in steelwork fabrication and delivery were caused by CBUK or SRS
  3. 3 Entitlement to payment for variations, including edge beam detail

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the June programme was not contractually binding, but the December programme reflected SRS's requirements and was accepted by conduct. CBUK was responsible for delays in fabrication and delivery, and SRS was entitled to recover reasonable acceleration and defect rectification costs as contra charges. CBUK was entitled to payment for substantiated variations but not for unsubstantiated claims or loss of productivity.

Court Disposition

Judgment for SRS with set-off of contra charges against sums due to CBUK.

Orders

  • CBUK entitled to payment for substantiated variations and outstanding sums, less contra charges for delay, defects, and acceleration.
  • SRS entitled to recover reasonable costs for nightshift erection squads, site staff, defect rectification, and disruption to metal decking installation.