Emson Eastern Ltd (in receivership) v EME Developments Ltd
Language: English Series: Construction Industry Law Letter ; 1991 CILL 696-697(2)Publication details: 1991Subject(s): Summary: QBD 22 July 1991. Considered the meaning of completion in Clause 27 of JCT 1980. Plaintiff contractor Emson (X) claimed £482,136.90 as the value of works under the contract together with a claim for loss and expense for delay and disruption. Defendant employer EME (Y) claimed no liability to make any further payment until after completion of work under Clause 27. Two preliminary issues raised were (1) if "works" included snagging and remedial work and (2) is practical completion equivalent to completion. Held that "work" does not include snagging or other remedial work undertaken after practical completion. Practical completion is also the same as completion. Therefore Y was unable to rely on Clause 27 to resist X`s claim although Y might have some redress under common law.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS45408 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 52748-1001 |
QBD 22 July 1991. Considered the meaning of completion in Clause 27 of JCT 1980. Plaintiff contractor Emson (X) claimed £482,136.90 as the value of works under the contract together with a claim for loss and expense for delay and disruption. Defendant employer EME (Y) claimed no liability to make any further payment until after completion of work under Clause 27. Two preliminary issues raised were (1) if "works" included snagging and remedial work and (2) is practical completion equivalent to completion. Held that "work" does not include snagging or other remedial work undertaken after practical completion. Practical completion is also the same as completion. Therefore Y was unable to rely on Clause 27 to resist X`s claim although Y might have some redress under common law.