Legal Cases

1.  Retention recovery:  Pitchmastic PLC -v- Birse Construction Ltd [2000] 

The matter of whether a main contractor can rely on a term of his sub-contract tying the release of a sub-contractor’s retention to the issue of a certificate under the main contract was considered by the Technology & Construction Court in 2000.

2.  Variation (Valuation of accepted works where breach of contract is not denied):  Ruxley Electronics –v- Forsyth [HL 1996]  

A ‘key’ restitution principle of English Civil Law is that any party proven to be ‘injured’ is to be compensated by damages such that they are restored to the status quo had that wrong not been done. This was a major legal case on this principle.

3.  Evidenced in writing:  RJT Consulting Engineers Ltd -v- D M Engineering (N.I.) Ltd [2002]

The Housing Grants, Construction & Regeneration Act 1996, Section 107, stipulates that for applicable ‘construction operations’ to fall within the remit of the Act the construction contract must be in writing.

4.  Developing someone else's design:  Co-operative Insurance Society -v- Henry Boot (Scotland) Ltd [2002]

Most people would expect that, legally speaking, they would only be responsible for the quality of the performance of their own contract (and that of any sub-contractor) but, when it comes to design work, this common sensical position does not apply.

5.  How main contractors can dissuade you from submitting any issue to adjudication:  Bridgeway Construction Ltd -v- Tolent Construction Ltd 

The DETR, in their review of the Construction Act and the legal precedents that have followed, have been asked to ‘outlaw’ provisions entitling the main contractor to charge its legal costs to the subcontractor, win or lose.

6.  Insurance of the finished works - Protection:  H L Smith Construction Ltd –v- W S Harvey (Decorators) PLC [1996]

It is argued that the ‘fully, finally and properly incorporated’ provision relates more to the commodity's physical attachment to the land (the works) than to its state of preparedness to be powered up, but there appears to be little case law on the matter.

7.  Your Written Order must detail all the Important Terms:  The Case of Westdawn Refurbishments Ltd -v- Roselodge Ltd  TCC 25il 2006

For the purpose of invoking the provisions of The Construction Act is having a contract "evidenced in writing" enough? The judge of this case said "No"!