000			02215cam a2200313 4500
001			ABS66342
008			030206n2003 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u121262
100			_aKlein, R.
245			_aImportance of serving notice
260			_c2003
490			_aConstruction News _v(6798) 9 January 2003, 21(1)
490			_aBuilding _v268 (8265) 9 January 2002, 62(1)
520			_aPoints out that when a court rules that a contractor should be paid in a dispute, the payer must issue a withholding notice if it wishes to pursue its claim or it could face a winding-up order. In the recent case of "Guardi Shoes v Datum Contracts" (ChD [2002] CILL 1934) Guardi (G) complained there were a significant number of defects in the work carried out by their shopfitting contractors Datum (D) and refused to allow D to return to remedy the alleged defects, and refused further payment. D took the matter to adjudication, which set a sum of £108 000 to be paid to D. Payments were begun in instalments, but then G defaulted. D issued a statutory demand for the unpaid amount, giving G 21 days to satisfy payment or face presentation of a winding-up petition, which duly took place. G cross-claimed for the defects, arguing they were likely to equal or exceed the remaining due amount. The judge ruled G had not taken the opportunity to serve a counternotice, and ruled a notice must be served within five days of the due payment date, which can double as a withholding notice, or risk a statutory demand for payment.
590			_aABS
650			_aMANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION-ADJUDICATION
650			_aSERVING NOTICES
650			_aGUARDI SHOES LTD V DATUM CONTRACTS
650			_aCONTRACTORS PAYMENTS
650			_aCONSTRUCTION DISPUTES
650			_aWITHHOLDING NOTICES
650			_aWINDING-UP ORDERS
650			_aSTATUTORY DEMAND
650			_aHOUSING GRANTS, CONSTRUCTION AND REGENERATION ACT 1996 S111
650			_aSUMMARY JUDGMENTS
650			_aCOUNTERNOTICES
690			_aMANGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION
942			_n0
999			_c72072 _d72072