In the dock: vague clauses and reluctant adjudicators
Cottam, G.
In the dock: vague clauses and reluctant adjudicators - 2003 - Construction News (6843) 20 November 2003, 16(1) .
In "Thomas-Fredric's (Construction) Ltd v Keith Wilson" ([2003] EWCA Civ 1494, [2004] BLR 23-30(8) the case centred on whether or not the contract was evidenced in writing, as required by the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. A contract had been entered into with Thomas-Fredric (T-F) for the construction of two dwellings on land at the rear of Keith Wilson's home (K). The agreement was terminated and a second agreement entered into for completion of the work. The second gave rise to a dispute. It was made orally and was evidenced by a letter from the developer's surveyor to T-F, which stated that further payments would be made on condition that the value of the work is carried out diligently and that the value of the works is considered correct to that amount. K countersigned this, on behalf of Gowersand Ltd. Later dispute hinged on this, as it highlighted lack of clarity in correspondence. Article also examines issue of time limit for decisions, as highlighted in "St Andrews Bay Development Ltd v H B G Management Ltd" ([2003] CILL 2016, Abs66798).
HOUSING GRANTS, CONSTRUCTION AND REGENERATION ACT 1996
THOMAS-FREDRIC'S (CONSTRUCTION) LTD V WILSON
ST ANDREWS BAY DEVELOPMENT LTD V H B G MANAGEMENT LTD
MANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION-ADJUDICATION
BUILT ENVIRONMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT FORMS
In the dock: vague clauses and reluctant adjudicators - 2003 - Construction News (6843) 20 November 2003, 16(1) .
In "Thomas-Fredric's (Construction) Ltd v Keith Wilson" ([2003] EWCA Civ 1494, [2004] BLR 23-30(8) the case centred on whether or not the contract was evidenced in writing, as required by the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. A contract had been entered into with Thomas-Fredric (T-F) for the construction of two dwellings on land at the rear of Keith Wilson's home (K). The agreement was terminated and a second agreement entered into for completion of the work. The second gave rise to a dispute. It was made orally and was evidenced by a letter from the developer's surveyor to T-F, which stated that further payments would be made on condition that the value of the work is carried out diligently and that the value of the works is considered correct to that amount. K countersigned this, on behalf of Gowersand Ltd. Later dispute hinged on this, as it highlighted lack of clarity in correspondence. Article also examines issue of time limit for decisions, as highlighted in "St Andrews Bay Development Ltd v H B G Management Ltd" ([2003] CILL 2016, Abs66798).
HOUSING GRANTS, CONSTRUCTION AND REGENERATION ACT 1996
THOMAS-FREDRIC'S (CONSTRUCTION) LTD V WILSON
ST ANDREWS BAY DEVELOPMENT LTD V H B G MANAGEMENT LTD
MANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION-ADJUDICATION
BUILT ENVIRONMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT FORMS