Tameside MDC v Barlow Securities Group Services Ltd
Series: Building Law Reports ; [2001] 3 BLR 113-125(13)Publication details: 2001Subject(s): Summary: CA 15 January 2001. The respondent (B) contracted with the appellant (T) to build 106 houses, with T's acceptance of B's tender constituting a binding contract until a formal agreement could be prepared. A JCT Contract was executed on 9 February 1984 by when a practical completion certificate had been issued on 7 houses. Practical completion of the last houses and the final works were certified on 17 October 1984 and 12 July 1985 but no certificate of practical completion in respect of all works was ever issued or requested. T issued a writ against B in 1996 after defects became apparent in some houses but was estopped by the HC from relying upon the absence of a final certificate as it had impliedly represented that it would not and that, subject to the issue of deliberate concealment, claims in respect of the first two practical completion certificates were time barred. T appealed these issues and two others regarding a breach of contract by T for failing to issue a final certificate. "Held": there had been no clear and unequivocal representation by T; there was no reliance by B in relation to the particular estoppel; that the houses subject to the first two practical completion certificates were statute-barred; T's architect was not in breach of contract; the failure to issue a final certificate did not prevent T from bringing claims.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS63796 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 112394-1001 |
CA 15 January 2001. The respondent (B) contracted with the appellant (T) to build 106 houses, with T's acceptance of B's tender constituting a binding contract until a formal agreement could be prepared. A JCT Contract was executed on 9 February 1984 by when a practical completion certificate had been issued on 7 houses. Practical completion of the last houses and the final works were certified on 17 October 1984 and 12 July 1985 but no certificate of practical completion in respect of all works was ever issued or requested. T issued a writ against B in 1996 after defects became apparent in some houses but was estopped by the HC from relying upon the absence of a final certificate as it had impliedly represented that it would not and that, subject to the issue of deliberate concealment, claims in respect of the first two practical completion certificates were time barred. T appealed these issues and two others regarding a breach of contract by T for failing to issue a final certificate. "Held": there had been no clear and unequivocal representation by T; there was no reliance by B in relation to the particular estoppel; that the houses subject to the first two practical completion certificates were statute-barred; T's architect was not in breach of contract; the failure to issue a final certificate did not prevent T from bringing claims.