000			01560cab a2200217 4500
001			ABS39828
008			090401t1988 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u19209
041			_aeng
245			_aShanning International Ltd v George Wimpey International Ltd
260			_c1988
300			_aj
350			_a0
490			_aNew Law Journal _v(1988) 279-280(2)
520			_aCA 8 September 1988. Appeal by main contractor (G) from official referee`s (R) decision, ordering G to make an interim payment of £350,000 to the subcontractor (S) under RSC Order 29 rule 12(c). A dispute arose between the two parties involved in construction of a hospital in Oman , and S issued a writ claiming £969,000 from G, in respect of goods and retention money s. S applied for summary judgment under Order 14, or alternatively, interim payment under Order 29. G admitted that it owed £904.000 to S, but claimed that this amount was subject to a set-off and counterclaim which would extinguish the admitted claim. R refused to enter judgment under Order 14, but ordered G to make an interim payment of £350,000. G appealed, contending that R could not have been satisfied that if the action proceeded to trial S would obtain judgment for a substantial sum, and therefore he should not have made the interim payment order. In R`s view, the correct approach was for the court to ask itself:
650			_aBUILT ENVIRONMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT FORMS
650			_aCLAIMS
690			_aBUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION-CASE LAW
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c12799 _d12799