Post-repudiation adjudication
Series: Contract Journal ; 424(6485) 21 July 2004, 34(1)Publication details: 2004Subject(s): Summary: Discusses "Connex South Eastern Ltd v MJ Building Services Group Plc" ([2004] EWHC 1518 (TCC), [2004] BLR 333-340(8) where the requirement for an agreement to be in writing within the meaning of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 s107 was considered. M had entered into a contract with C to supply CCTV cameras at railway stations. No written contract was entered into. M received instructions that the works were completely suspended, when C was acquired by another company. M sent C a letter stating C had repudiated the alleged contract and M had accepted the repudiation. M served a notice of adjudication on its claim for payment, which C refuted claiming there was no written acceptance of M's tender. Judge rejected C's claim that adjudication was intended only to relieve cash flow problems arising during the course of a contract and could not be used in the case of a dispute where a repudiation had been accepted. C's declaration was refused and the adjudication was allowed to proceed to deal with the matters in dispute between the parties.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS68123 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 127173-1001 |
Discusses "Connex South Eastern Ltd v MJ Building Services Group Plc" ([2004] EWHC 1518 (TCC), [2004] BLR 333-340(8) where the requirement for an agreement to be in writing within the meaning of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 s107 was considered. M had entered into a contract with C to supply CCTV cameras at railway stations. No written contract was entered into. M received instructions that the works were completely suspended, when C was acquired by another company. M sent C a letter stating C had repudiated the alleged contract and M had accepted the repudiation. M served a notice of adjudication on its claim for payment, which C refuted claiming there was no written acceptance of M's tender. Judge rejected C's claim that adjudication was intended only to relieve cash flow problems arising during the course of a contract and could not be used in the case of a dispute where a repudiation had been accepted. C's declaration was refused and the adjudication was allowed to proceed to deal with the matters in dispute between the parties.