part of a wider dispute between the parties. The respondent FK did not dispute the
validity of the decision. Instead, they made an application under Part 8 CPR asking
the court to rule on two short points, which if upheld, meant the decision was wrong
in law and should not therefore, in conscience, be enforced.
After a full hearing and following receipt of a draft judgment, the parties settled the
wider dispute and the court made a consent order dealing with the entire dispute.
It was not asked to and did not enter summary judgment. The two points the court
had been asked to decide on the Part 8 application arose from an important
payment provision of a JCT standard form of contract in common use, on which (so
far as counsel were aware) there was no previous authority and, in its discretion and
with the agreement of the parties, the court elected to give judgment recording its
decision on those points.
FK as main contractor engaged Elements as sub-contractor under a Sub-Contract
in writing incorporating the JCT Standard Building Sub-Contract Conditions SBCSub/C 2016 Edition with bespoke amendments ( ‘ the Sub-Contract ’ ) to carry out remediation works to 312 bi-split apartment modules as part of the design and
construction of three buildings to comprise a 156 residential apartment scheme at
Uptown Riverside, Springfield Lane, Salford.
The material terms
Clause 4.6 (page 68.30) of the Sub-Contract Conditions provided:
"4.6.1. During the period up to the due date for the final payment fixed under Clause 4.22.1 … the monthly due dates for interim payments shall in each case be the date 12 days after the relevant Interim Valuation Date …" 4.6.3. Where Clause 4.6.2 does not apply, the Subcontractor may make a payment application in respect of an interim payment to the Contractor either:
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting