Image from Google Jackets

Post-repudiation adjudication

By: 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.
Holdings
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.