Image from Google Jackets

Melville Dundas Ltd (in receivership) v George Wimpey UK Ltd and another

Language: English Publication details: 2005Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2005] ScotCS CSIH 18, 15 December 2005. In March 2002, M entered into a design and build contract with W. M submitted an application for interim payment in May 2003, but before W had the opportunity to pay, M applied to be put into receivership. The issue was whether M was due its payment, as clause 27 of the contract appeared to prevent payment being made to an insolvent contractor. "Held" M was entitled to payment in full. The parties had intended the provisions of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 s111 to apply, and had agreed the final date for payment as 14 days after application for payment had been submitted by M; application had been made on 2 May 2003, and therefore the final date for payment was indisputably 16 May. Clause 27 served only to terminate M's employment, and did not rescind the contract itself.

[2005] ScotCS CSIH 18, 15 December 2005. In March 2002, M entered into a design and build contract with W. M submitted an application for interim payment in May 2003, but before W had the opportunity to pay, M applied to be put into receivership. The issue was whether M was due its payment, as clause 27 of the contract appeared to prevent payment being made to an insolvent contractor. "Held" M was entitled to payment in full. The parties had intended the provisions of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 s111 to apply, and had agreed the final date for payment as 14 days after application for payment had been submitted by M; application had been made on 2 May 2003, and therefore the final date for payment was indisputably 16 May. Clause 27 served only to terminate M's employment, and did not rescind the contract itself.