Shanning International Ltd v George Wimpey International Ltd
Shanning International Ltd v George Wimpey International Ltd
- 1988
- j
- New Law Journal (1988) 279-280(2) .
CA 8 September 1988. Appeal by main contractor (G) from official referee`s (R) decision, ordering G to make an interim payment of £350,000 to the subcontractor (S) under RSC Order 29 rule 12(c). A dispute arose between the two parties involved in construction of a hospital in Oman , and S issued a writ claiming £969,000 from G, in respect of goods and retention money s. S applied for summary judgment under Order 14, or alternatively, interim payment under Order 29. G admitted that it owed £904.000 to S, but claimed that this amount was subject to a set-off and counterclaim which would extinguish the admitted claim. R refused to enter judgment under Order 14, but ordered G to make an interim payment of £350,000. G appealed, contending that R could not have been satisfied that if the action proceeded to trial S would obtain judgment for a substantial sum, and therefore he should not have made the interim payment order. In R`s view, the correct approach was for the court to ask itself:
BUILT ENVIRONMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT FORMS
CLAIMS
CA 8 September 1988. Appeal by main contractor (G) from official referee`s (R) decision, ordering G to make an interim payment of £350,000 to the subcontractor (S) under RSC Order 29 rule 12(c). A dispute arose between the two parties involved in construction of a hospital in Oman , and S issued a writ claiming £969,000 from G, in respect of goods and retention money s. S applied for summary judgment under Order 14, or alternatively, interim payment under Order 29. G admitted that it owed £904.000 to S, but claimed that this amount was subject to a set-off and counterclaim which would extinguish the admitted claim. R refused to enter judgment under Order 14, but ordered G to make an interim payment of £350,000. G appealed, contending that R could not have been satisfied that if the action proceeded to trial S would obtain judgment for a substantial sum, and therefore he should not have made the interim payment order. In R`s view, the correct approach was for the court to ask itself:
BUILT ENVIRONMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT FORMS
CLAIMS