Image from Google Jackets

Steve Domsalla (trading as Domsalla Building Services) v Kenneth Dyason [electronic resource]

Language: English Publication details: 2007Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2007] EWHC 1174 (TCC), 4 May 2007. Considered whether the application of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 made the withholding notice provisions of the JCT Minor Building Works form of contract unenforceable. A JCT Minor Building Works form of contract was signed by the applicant building contractor (S) and the respondent (D) who was a residential occupier under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 s106(1). Disputes over the non-completion of the work on D's property arose and S referred disputes arising from non-payment to adjudication. D contended that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction because the adjudication and withholding notice clauses in the contract were unenforceable due to the application of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. However, a decision was made in S's favour by the adjudicator and S applied for summary judgment to enforce the award. "Held": application refused. In the circumstances the adjudicator was wrong in deciding that the withholding provisions of the contract were binding on D.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report Virtual Online ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 139316-2001

[2007] EWHC 1174 (TCC), 4 May 2007. Considered whether the application of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 made the withholding notice provisions of the JCT Minor Building Works form of contract unenforceable. A JCT Minor Building Works form of contract was signed by the applicant building contractor (S) and the respondent (D) who was a residential occupier under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 s106(1). Disputes over the non-completion of the work on D's property arose and S referred disputes arising from non-payment to adjudication. D contended that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction because the adjudication and withholding notice clauses in the contract were unenforceable due to the application of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. However, a decision was made in S's favour by the adjudicator and S applied for summary judgment to enforce the award. "Held": application refused. In the circumstances the adjudicator was wrong in deciding that the withholding provisions of the contract were binding on D.