McLaughlin and Harvey plc v P&O Developments Ltd
McLaughlin and Harvey plc v P&O Developments Ltd
- 1991
- Construction Industry Law Letter 1991 CILL 677-678(2) .
Commercial Court 18 April 1991. The contractors M entered into a agreement with P to construct an office block under JCT 1980 incorporating 1984/1986 amendments. Various disputes arose. In July 1990 the architect sent a final account to M who accepted it and in November 1990 they received a final certificate certifying the adjusted contract sum as that shown on the final account which M declined to accept. M wrote to the architect asking for an interim certificate and a discussion on the point. M received no answer so in December gave notice to concur the appointment of a arbitrator however the contract held that this should be issued within 14 days of the final certificate and it was then 15. M sought an extension of time from P for commencement of arbitration. P however argued that a valid arbitration had been launched by the December letter although not accepted by the architects. It was held that the delay was only one day and that discretion should be exercised in favour of M, t
BUILT ENVIRONMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT FORMS
CLAIMS
LAW CASE
Commercial Court 18 April 1991. The contractors M entered into a agreement with P to construct an office block under JCT 1980 incorporating 1984/1986 amendments. Various disputes arose. In July 1990 the architect sent a final account to M who accepted it and in November 1990 they received a final certificate certifying the adjusted contract sum as that shown on the final account which M declined to accept. M wrote to the architect asking for an interim certificate and a discussion on the point. M received no answer so in December gave notice to concur the appointment of a arbitrator however the contract held that this should be issued within 14 days of the final certificate and it was then 15. M sought an extension of time from P for commencement of arbitration. P however argued that a valid arbitration had been launched by the December letter although not accepted by the architects. It was held that the delay was only one day and that discretion should be exercised in favour of M, t
BUILT ENVIRONMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT FORMS
CLAIMS
LAW CASE