St Martins Property Corporation Ltd and St Martins Investment Ltd v Sir Robert McAlpine and Sons Limited
Language: English Series: Construction Industry Law Letter ; 1991 CILL 648-650(3)Publication details: 1991Subject(s): Summary: QBD 29 January 1991. On 29 October 1974, a property corporation X, entered into a contract with Z for the construction of a shopping centre . They did so on their own behalf and not as agents or trustees for any other body. The contract was JCT 1963 Private Edition with Quantities July 1972 revision. Clause 17 stated that the employer should not assign the contract without written consent. X had a development agreement with the council making them owners of a 150 year lease on the completed development. During the course of the construction the group of which X was a part decided to reorganise itself for tax reasons and the development was transferred to Y, a separate legal entity but in the same ultimate ownership.A deed of assignment was drawn up dated 25 March 1976. Consent to assignment was neither requested from nor given by Z. Notice was given to them in 1986. Defects appeared at the development, allegedly caused by Z`s breach of contract which they denied. Z also claimed that| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS44218 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 45905-1001 |
QBD 29 January 1991. On 29 October 1974, a property corporation X, entered into a contract with Z for the construction of a shopping centre . They did so on their own behalf and not as agents or trustees for any other body. The contract was JCT 1963 Private Edition with Quantities July 1972 revision. Clause 17 stated that the employer should not assign the contract without written consent. X had a development agreement with the council making them owners of a 150 year lease on the completed development. During the course of the construction the group of which X was a part decided to reorganise itself for tax reasons and the development was transferred to Y, a separate legal entity but in the same ultimate ownership.A deed of assignment was drawn up dated 25 March 1976. Consent to assignment was neither requested from nor given by Z. Notice was given to them in 1986. Defects appeared at the development, allegedly caused by Z`s breach of contract which they denied. Z also claimed that