A.C. Machin Design and Build Contractors v Long
A.C. Machin Design and Build Contractors v Long
- 1993
- Construction Industry Law Letter 1993 CILL 818-820(3) .
CA 20 October 1992. From April 1987 to July 1988 M carried out building works for L under a contract in the ACA form which provided for interim payments against certificates issued by the architect. In July 1988 the architect issued the 12th certificate which brought the value of the work certified to £472,000. In September 1988 M issued a writ against L claiming £88,000 plus VAT. This was made up of the unpaid balance of £60,000 due in respect of certificate 12 and claims for extra work of £38,000 less the amounts previously paid and an admitted deduction of £4,000 in respect of direct payments to subcontractors. In December the architects purported to cancel certificate 12 and issued a revised certificate for a reduced amount. The case was heard by the Official Referee who held that the architect had ceased to act fairy and impartially to the extent that he had colluded with L. In particular he held that the revision of the certificate was ineffective and therefore the original one
CLAIMS
INTERIM CERTIFICATES
INTERIM PAYMENTS
CA 20 October 1992. From April 1987 to July 1988 M carried out building works for L under a contract in the ACA form which provided for interim payments against certificates issued by the architect. In July 1988 the architect issued the 12th certificate which brought the value of the work certified to £472,000. In September 1988 M issued a writ against L claiming £88,000 plus VAT. This was made up of the unpaid balance of £60,000 due in respect of certificate 12 and claims for extra work of £38,000 less the amounts previously paid and an admitted deduction of £4,000 in respect of direct payments to subcontractors. In December the architects purported to cancel certificate 12 and issued a revised certificate for a reduced amount. The case was heard by the Official Referee who held that the architect had ceased to act fairy and impartially to the extent that he had colluded with L. In particular he held that the revision of the certificate was ineffective and therefore the original one
CLAIMS
INTERIM CERTIFICATES
INTERIM PAYMENTS