[2009] EWHC 516 (Ch), 18 March 2009. The case relates to the true interpretation of a building contract. Menolly Investments 3 (M) and Cerep Sarl (C) went into a Share sales agreement under which M would have to buy sales from a company owing a building in Cheapside, London. Practical completion under the building contract was to be reached for this agreement to be fulfilled. It appears that, for the parties, "practical completion" meant "completed for all practical purposes". M argued that there was no practical completion as there was no level access to the retail units as required by the disability discrimination legislation. C objected that the issue of level access had been entered very late in the court proceedings. M had conducted itself as though practical completion was achieved. This proved, for Cerep, that practical completion was achieved and a valid certificate could be issued. "Held": The works necessary to add the level access were part of the contractor's contractual obligations. The issue of the level access did come late in the proceedings. The parties conducted themselves on the basis that practical completion was achieved. C suffered a prejudice by M not raising the point of level access earlier. M were under obligation to complete the Share sale agreement.