[2006] EWHC 89, TCC, 16 January 2006. SJ engaged S to install cladding on three buildings. The contract provided for a design team and construction manager; M were appointed construction manager, in a section which defined other entities and concluded with a power for SJ to appoint any further or other person. At a later date, SJ purported to appoint itself construction manager, and after disagreement between the parties, applied to the court for a declaration that it was entitled to do so under the contract. "Held" a decision-maker under a construction contract, who was not independent of the employer, was obliged to use his professional skills and best endeavours to reach the correct decision, rather than a decision favouring the employer's interests. Whilst an employer itself was not incapable of acting in such a manner, it was more difficult for it to make a decision contrary to its own interests. In this case, the whole structure of the contract had proceeded on the basis that employer and construction manager were different entities, and a large number of complexities were created if they were the same. Additionally, If SJ's interpretation were correct, then it would be entitled to dismiss all the design team, and act in their place, which would completely transform the agreement between the parties. In the circumstances, SJ was not entitled to appoint itself construction manager.