Yuanda (UK) Co Ltd v WW Gear Construction Ltd [2010] EWHC 720 (TCC) (13 April 2010)

Yuanda (UK) Co Ltd v WW Gear Construction Ltd [2010] EWHC 720 (TCC) (13 April 2010)

Yuanda did not contract on Gear's written standard terms of business because material amendments were negotiated, so UCTA 1977 section 3 did not apply. Clause 9A, requiring Yuanda to pay both parties' adjudication costs, was contrary to section 108 of HGCRA as it fettered Yuanda's right to adjudicate and must be...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 720 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Yuanda (UK) Co Ltd; Defendant: WW Gear Construction Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 April 2010
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim (cpr) / High Court, Technology and Construction Court, First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Declarations granted in part; clause 9A adjudication provisions struck out and replaced by Part I of the Scheme for Construction Contracts; other relief refused.
Legal Topics
Adjudication Provisions, Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (ucta), Late Payment of Commercial Debts (interest) Act 1998, Interpretation of Standard Terms, Substitution of Statutory Schemes, Reasonableness of Contractual Remedies
Construction Law Contract Law Adjudication Provisions Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (ucta) Late Payment of Commercial Debts (interest) Act 1998 Interpretation of Standard Terms Substitution of Statutory Schemes Reasonableness of Contractual Remedies

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Yuanda (UK) Co Ltd

Claimant

WW Gear Construction Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim (cpr) / High Court, Technology and Construction Court, First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did Yuanda contract on Gear's written standard terms of business for UCTA 1977 section 3?
  2. 2 Is the contract an international supply contract under UCTA 1977 section 26?
  3. 3 Is clause 9A (adjudication costs) unreasonable or void under UCTA 1977?

Ratio Decidendi

Yuanda did not contract on Gear's written standard terms of business because material amendments were negotiated, so UCTA 1977 section 3 did not apply. Clause 9A, requiring Yuanda to pay both parties' adjudication costs, was contrary to section 108 of HGCRA as it fettered Yuanda's right to adjudicate and must be replaced in its entirety by Part I of the Scheme for Construction Contracts. The 0.5% interest rate for late payment was not held to be void under the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 on the facts as found.

Court Disposition

Declarations granted in part; clause 9A adjudication provisions struck out and replaced by Part I of the Scheme for Construction Contracts; other relief refused.

Orders

  • Clause 9A of the contract is void and replaced by Part I of the Scheme for Construction Contracts.
  • No order for substitution of statutory interest rate under the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998.