000			02078naa a22002057a 4500
008			240509e20240709xxk|||||o||||o00| 0 eng d
041			_aeng
245			_aAbbey Healthcare v Augusta 2008 LLP (formerly Simply Construct) _b[2024] UKSC 23
260			_bThe Supreme Court, _c9 July 2024
520			_aLooks at the circumstances in which a collateral warranty amounts to a construction contract under S.104 of the Housing Grants (Construction & Regeneration) Act 1996, asking what is the meaning of an agreement “for… the carrying out of construction operations”. The majority of the Court of Appeal concluded that the Abbey Collateral Warranty was a construction contract. The Supreme Court looked at a more principled and workable approach was to draw the dividing line between collateral warranties which merely replicate undertakings in the building contract and those which give rise to separate or distinct undertakings for the carrying out of construction operations. This approach means that the Abbey Collateral Warranty is not a construction contract. This conclusion means that the decision of Akenhead J in Parkwood Leisure Ltd v Laing O’Rourke Wales and West Ltd [2013] EWHC 2665 (TCC), upon which the majority of the Court of Appeal placed considerable reliance and rightly held to be indistinguishable, was wrongly decided and must be overruled. Whilst 'most collateral warranties will not be construction contracts' and hence will be without the right to adjudicate, an express right to adjudicate can always be included in the warranty if required.
520			_aJudges: Lord Briggs, Lord Hamblen, Lady Rose, Lord Richards, Lady Simler
520			_aJudgment appealed [2022] EWCA Civ 823
650			_aABBEY HEALTHCARE v SIMPLY CONSTRUCT
650			_aCOLLATERAL WARRANTIES
650			_aCONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
650			_aPARKWOOD LEISURE V LAING O'ROURKE
651			_aUnited Kingdom
690			_aContracts _96232
856			_uhttps://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2022-0124.html _zJudgement available on the Supreme Court website
999			_c121967 _d121967