Leeds City Council v Waco UK Ltd [2015] EWHC 1400 (TCC) (22 May 2015)

Leeds City Council v Waco UK Ltd [2015] EWHC 1400 (TCC) (22 May 2015)

Application 21 was not a valid interim payment application because it was made prematurely, outside the contractual or agreed dates, and there was no waiver, estoppel, or agreement by LCC (through Jacobs) to accept such premature applications. The adjudicator's decision enforcing Application 21 was therefore incorrect. Application 22 was also not valid for payment as certified by LCC. Jacobs' conduct did not amount to waiver or estoppel, and their authority did not extend to varying pre-Practical Completion dates without express authorisation.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 1400 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Leeds City Council; Defendant: Waco UK Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim for Declarations (technology and Construction Court) / Judgment on Application for Declarations Following Adjudication and Summary Judgment Proceedings
Outcome
Declarations granted in favour of Leeds City Council; adjudicator's decision set aside; Waco to repay sums paid by LCC with interest.
Legal Topics
Interim Payments, Contractual Interpretation, Waiver and Estoppel, Authority of Contract Administrator, Adjudication Enforcement
Construction Law Contract Law Interim Payments Contractual Interpretation Waiver and Estoppel Authority of Contract Administrator 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leeds City Council

Claimant

Waco UK Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim for Declarations (technology and Construction Court) / Judgment on Application for Declarations Following Adjudication and Summary Judgment Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Application 21 was a valid interim payment application under the contract
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator's decision enforcing Application 21 was correct
  3. 3 Whether Application 22 was a valid application

Ratio Decidendi

Application 21 was not a valid interim payment application because it was made prematurely, outside the contractual or agreed dates, and there was no waiver, estoppel, or agreement by LCC (through Jacobs) to accept such premature applications. The adjudicator's decision enforcing Application 21 was therefore incorrect. Application 22 was also not valid for payment as certified by LCC. Jacobs' conduct did not amount to waiver or estoppel, and their authority did not extend to varying pre-Practical Completion dates without express authorisation.

Court Disposition

Declarations granted in favour of Leeds City Council; adjudicator's decision set aside; Waco to repay sums paid by LCC with interest.

Orders

  • Declaration that Application 21 was not a valid application and the adjudicator's decision is set aside.
  • Declaration that no money is due under Application 22.