Adam Architecture Ltd v Halsbury Homes Ltd

Adam Architecture Ltd v Halsbury Homes Ltd

Section 111 of the 1996 Act applies to both interim and final/termination accounts; therefore, Halsbury was obliged to serve a pay less notice to resist payment of Adam's account. Adam did not accept repudiation but claimed payment for work done under the contract. In the absence of a pay less notice, Adam was entitled to recover the invoiced sums, and the adjudicator's decision is enforceable.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Adam Architecture Limited; Defendant/respondent: Halsbury Homes Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Statutory Interpretation, Payment Provisions, Termination of Contract, Repudiation, Adjudication Enforcement
Construction Law Contract Law Statutory Interpretation Payment Provisions Termination of Contract Repudiation Adjudication Enforcement

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

Parties

Adam Architecture Limited

Claimant/appellant

Halsbury Homes Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does section 111 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 apply to final and termination accounts or only to interim payments?
  2. 2 Was Halsbury's email of 2nd December 2015 a repudiatory breach of contract?
  3. 3 Did Adam accept any repudiatory breach?

Ratio Decidendi

Section 111 of the 1996 Act applies to both interim and final/termination accounts; therefore, Halsbury was obliged to serve a pay less notice to resist payment of Adam's account. Adam did not accept repudiation but claimed payment for work done under the contract. In the absence of a pay less notice, Adam was entitled to recover the invoiced sums, and the adjudicator's decision is enforceable.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Halsbury's Part 8 proceedings dismissed
  • Summary judgment in favour of Adam in Part 7 proceedings