Bodill and Sons (Contractors) Ltd v Harmail Singh Mattu [electronic resource]
Bodill and Sons (Contractors) Ltd v Harmail Singh Mattu [electronic resource]
- 2007
[2007] EWHC 2950 (QB), 30 November 2007. Considers the manner in which retention trust accounts should be set up. Respondent (M) engaged contractor (B) to construct new apartments and convert two warehouses under a JCT 1998 contract. The contract provided that the retention monies are held on trust and that if the contractor requests, the employer should place the retention in a separate banking account. In accordance with the contract, B asked M to set up the requisite separate bank account and pay the retention money into it. M failed to do this promptly and B issued proceedings for an injunction. The issues were how long was reasonable for the account to be set up and was the account sufficiently identified as a trust account as envisaged by the contract. "Held": M was nominally in breach of trust and/or contract in failing to secure the payment of the retention money into the account within a period of two to three weeks. In addition, the name of the account was not sufficiently clear and could not be described as a designated trust account. M undertook to rectify this.
BODILL AND SONS (CONTRACTORS) LTD V MATTU
JCT STANDARD FORM OF BUILDING CONTRACT (1998 EDITION)
England and Wales--1543-
[2007] EWHC 2950 (QB), 30 November 2007. Considers the manner in which retention trust accounts should be set up. Respondent (M) engaged contractor (B) to construct new apartments and convert two warehouses under a JCT 1998 contract. The contract provided that the retention monies are held on trust and that if the contractor requests, the employer should place the retention in a separate banking account. In accordance with the contract, B asked M to set up the requisite separate bank account and pay the retention money into it. M failed to do this promptly and B issued proceedings for an injunction. The issues were how long was reasonable for the account to be set up and was the account sufficiently identified as a trust account as envisaged by the contract. "Held": M was nominally in breach of trust and/or contract in failing to secure the payment of the retention money into the account within a period of two to three weeks. In addition, the name of the account was not sufficiently clear and could not be described as a designated trust account. M undertook to rectify this.
BODILL AND SONS (CONTRACTORS) LTD V MATTU
JCT STANDARD FORM OF BUILDING CONTRACT (1998 EDITION)
England and Wales--1543-