Image from Google Jackets

PC Harrington Contractors Ltd v Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd [electronic resource]

Language: English Publication details: 2007Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2007] EWHC 2833 (TCC), 30 November 2007. Considers the interaction between the payment provisions of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 and the subcontract clause in relation to payment, certification and deductions. Respondent contractor (M) and applicant sub-contractor (P) were in dispute as to the effect of an interim payment certificate issued by M under a subcontract between the parties. P applied for a declaration that M owed it a sum that was due and payable and that sum could be taken into account in an adjudication commenced by M under the terms of the sub-contract. "Held": application refused. In the interim payment certificate, the amount identified as nett payment did not represent a sum that P was entitled to receive because it did not take account of the deductions that M had set against it. Therefore P could not claim that that sum was due and payable in an adjudication started by M in respect of alleged defective works.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report Virtual Online ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 143203-2001

[2007] EWHC 2833 (TCC), 30 November 2007. Considers the interaction between the payment provisions of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 and the subcontract clause in relation to payment, certification and deductions. Respondent contractor (M) and applicant sub-contractor (P) were in dispute as to the effect of an interim payment certificate issued by M under a subcontract between the parties. P applied for a declaration that M owed it a sum that was due and payable and that sum could be taken into account in an adjudication commenced by M under the terms of the sub-contract. "Held": application refused. In the interim payment certificate, the amount identified as nett payment did not represent a sum that P was entitled to receive because it did not take account of the deductions that M had set against it. Therefore P could not claim that that sum was due and payable in an adjudication started by M in respect of alleged defective works.