Posted by Andrew Ash, Partner
When a football club is aiming to win a league title, it employs individual players to form a team. The club signs contracts with the players, and pays each player as per their own contract terms. The club takes responsibility for the outcome of the season, and for the individual player performances along the way. The club also employs a manager to direct and enthuse the team to work towards the same goal; winning games at each stage to ultimately lift the trophy at the end of the season, and for the club to win the league title.
Less than 12 months ago, large areas of the country were affected by snow, and the consequences for many construction projects carried on long after the snow had melted.
This week saw Parliament speak out against a No Deal Brexit, the Leader of the Opposition encourage the Government to rule out a No Deal Brexit, and Brussels confirm that a negotiated orderly exit is the preferred option. And yet, despite all this, in the absence of a definite deal, commentators suggest that No Deal is still the default, and most likely, scenario.
The Court of Appeal has today handed down its decision on the appeal by Grove Developments Limited against the first instance decision by Coulson J, in which he decided that a party who had failed to issue an effective payment or pay less notice against a contractor’s application for interim payment could refer a dispute as to the true value of the Contractor’s works to adjudication.
Before the end of 2018, it will be ‘deal’ or ‘no deal’ in the Brexit negotiations and Parliament’s subsequent approval or otherwise of how the UK is going to leave the EU.
Victory House General Partner Limited, Re A Company  EWHC 1143 (Ch) is a stark reminder of the limitations of the effectiveness of obtaining judgment based on an Adjudicator’s decision where the respondent company may have a separate and bona fide cross claim.
This week (27 February 2018), in a judgment of the Technology and Construction Court, the Honourable Mr Justice Coulson confirmed that a party who fails to issue an effective payment or pay less notice in response to a contractor’s application for interim payment still has the right to seek in adjudication a proper valuation of the works included in the contractor’s application.
We are all well aware by now of the draconian effect of failing to issue a timely payment notice and/or pay less notice, in accordance with the contract, in response to interim payment applications (see for example: Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust v Logan Construction (South East) Limited  EWHC 17 (TCC)). Failure to do so can lead to losing the right to dispute the amount claimed (at least until the next interim payment application or final account).
Following the compulsory liquidation of Carillion yesterday and their appointment as special managers to support the Official Receiver, PricewaterhouseCoopers (“PwC”) website advises Carillion’s suppliers that they will be reviewing their contracts over the coming days and will be in touch “with further instructions” soon.
The Farmer Review of the UK construction industry commissioned by the government provides shocking revelations of the current dire state of the industry and recommendations of how to save its future.
When construction contracts are drafted and you are agreeing a schedule for interim payment application dates, it is critical that a provision is made for any delays. In the case of Grove Developments Limited v Balfour Beatty Construction Limited, we take a look at the consequences where stage payment is not implied.