to be made by certain dates and if late were to be administered as part of the following month’s payment; These proceedings were brought to finally determine the issue of the validity of that payment application. The subcontract provided (amongst other things) that payment applications by RGB were: Tawe served another notice of adjudication alleging that the application was valid. RGB asserted that that was substantially the same dispute as was dealt with in the first adjudication. In the event the third adjudicator did not decline jurisdiction and in his award dated 4 July 2020 decided that RGB should pay the amount set out in the application less sums received. 3) Payment application - validity: RGB Plastering Ltd v TAWE Drylining and Plastering Ltd [2020] EWHC 3028 (TCC) This was a part 8 application by TAWE for a declaration that an interim payment application by RGB was not in accordance with the subcontract and was therefore invalid. There had been three adjudication between the parties. In the first of these the validity of the application under the subcontract was in issue and in the award dated 23 December 2019 the adjudicator found that in accordance with the terms of the subcontract RGB was not required to consider the application. Neither party challenged that finding. Then, in June 2020,
The application in question was not only late, which if otherwise valid would simply have delayed payment by a month, but it did not value the works to either the current valuation date (3 May) or the following valuation date (2 June 2019). It was not sent to the email address set out in the payment schedule. In these respects, the application did not comply with the requirements of the subcontract. It was not clear or unambiguous so that the parties could know what to do about it or when[9].
In the judgment of the court it was invalid.
Previous payment applications which suffered from similar defects had been valued by TAWE and paid. This did not assist RGB as they were refused permission to rely on evidence filed 4 weeks late, and therefore to be able to raise a plea of waiver or estoppel. In any event, even if the evidence had been admitted, such a plea was so weak as to be unlikely to succeed.
to value works as at particular stated dates
to be sent by email to a stated address
[9] Following Caledonian Modular Ltd v Mar City Developments Ltd [2015] EWHC 1855; Henia Investments Inc v Beck Interiors Ltd [2015] EWHC 2433 (TCC); and Jawaby Property Investments Ltd v Interiors Group Ltd and Black [2016] EWHC 557 (TCC)
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker