MAXI CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT LTD v. MORTONS ROLLS LIMITED [2001] ScotHC 78 (7th August, 2001)

MAXI CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT LTD v. MORTONS ROLLS LIMITED [2001] ScotHC 78 (7th August, 2001)

Interim Valuation No. 10 did not constitute a claim for payment under the Scheme for Construction Contracts because it was an application for agreement of valuation, not payment, and lacked sufficient specification of the basis of calculation for several items. The contract, as amended, failed to provide an adequate mechanism for determining when payments became due, but the pursuers did not present a valid claim for payment under the statutory scheme.

Citation
[2001] ScotHC 78
Parties
Pursuer: Maxi Construction Management Limited; Defender: Mortons Rolls Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Procedural Posture
Commercial Construction Contract Dispute / Outer House, Court of Session, Opinion on Motion for Decree De Plano
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Interim Payments, Statutory Compliance, Application for Payment, Scheme for Construction Contracts
Contract Law Construction Law Interim Payments Statutory Compliance Application for Payment Scheme for Construction Contracts

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

Parties

Maxi Construction Management Limited

Pursuer

Mortons Rolls Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Construction Contract Dispute / Outer House, Court of Session, Opinion on Motion for Decree De Plano

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether amendments to Clause 30 of contract conditions were incorporated
  2. 2 Whether the pursuers' Interim Valuation No. 10 constituted a valid claim for payment under the Scheme for Construction Contracts
  3. 3 Whether the contract provided an adequate mechanism for determining payments due under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996

Ratio Decidendi

Interim Valuation No. 10 did not constitute a claim for payment under the Scheme for Construction Contracts because it was an application for agreement of valuation, not payment, and lacked sufficient specification of the basis of calculation for several items. The contract, as amended, failed to provide an adequate mechanism for determining when payments became due, but the pursuers did not present a valid claim for payment under the statutory scheme.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed

Orders

  • Sustain the defenders' first plea-in-law
  • Case to be put out By Order before final disposal