000			01431cab a22002055a 4500
001			L153991
008			110930e20090413xxk 000 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u153991
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aFenice Investments Inc v Jerram Falkus Construction Ltd _h[electronic resource]
260			_c2009
520			_a[2009] EWHC 3272 (TCC), 7 December 2009. The issues between the parties can be summarised as follows: what is the proper construction of the interim payment provisions in the contract? do those provisions comply with the Housing Grants (Construction & Regeneration) Act 1996 ("the Act")? what is the proper course to be adopted by a party who has been required to pay a sum of money by an adjudicator but who has a bona fide point of law to raise in connection with that decision? Held: the conflict between s.15 of the Requirements and clause 4.10 of the Conditions was fundamental which led to an unworkable set of contract provisions.
590			_aKA
650	2	4	_aFENICE V JERRAM FALKUS
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aBUILT ENVIRONMENT-CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
690			_aBUILT ENVIRONMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT FORMS
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2009/3272.html&query=title+(+fenice+)+and+title+(+investments+)&method=boolean _zView the judgement free of charge at www.bailii.org
942			_n0
999			_c83437 _d83437