C A Duquemin Ltd v Slater
C A Duquemin Ltd v Slater
- 1993
- Construction Industry Law Letter 1993 CILL 854-856(3) .
CA 31 March 1993. The case arose as a result of refurbishment work by the contractor (D) under JCT contract without quantities. The property was not owned by the employer (S) so in law defects in work would not result in loss to the employer. The dispute arose because D claimed for disruption, delay and payment on final account and S claimed for defective work. The claims were referred to arbitration and an interim award was issued. No deduction was made on account of defective work because it was said that S`s locking out of D had prevented them carrying their contractual obligations and deprived them of the opportunity to carry out remedial work. He rejected S`s claim as all expenses incurred in remedying defects had been born by the owner of the property not by S. S appealed against this award. Further interim awards were made. The court gave the abitrator power to `abate the contractors claim`. The arbitrator was therefore empowered to deduct the difference between the value of w
CLAIMS
DELAYS
INTERIM AWARDS
JCT80 WITH QUANTITIES
PROLONGATION AWARDS
SCOTT SCHEDULES
CA 31 March 1993. The case arose as a result of refurbishment work by the contractor (D) under JCT contract without quantities. The property was not owned by the employer (S) so in law defects in work would not result in loss to the employer. The dispute arose because D claimed for disruption, delay and payment on final account and S claimed for defective work. The claims were referred to arbitration and an interim award was issued. No deduction was made on account of defective work because it was said that S`s locking out of D had prevented them carrying their contractual obligations and deprived them of the opportunity to carry out remedial work. He rejected S`s claim as all expenses incurred in remedying defects had been born by the owner of the property not by S. S appealed against this award. Further interim awards were made. The court gave the abitrator power to `abate the contractors claim`. The arbitrator was therefore empowered to deduct the difference between the value of w
CLAIMS
DELAYS
INTERIM AWARDS
JCT80 WITH QUANTITIES
PROLONGATION AWARDS
SCOTT SCHEDULES