Natural Justice See Victory House General Partner Ltd v RGB P&C Ltd The TCC re-examined the circumstances in which the adjudicator is entitled to make findings for which neither party has specifically contended, provided they have had the opportunity to address the relevant issues. Payment-contractual requirement for pay less notice- effect of Act See Adam Architecture Ltd v Halsbury Homes Ltd The Court of Appeal decided that irrespective of the terms of the appointment, the Act attached to any final payment as well as interim payments and whether or not the appointment had been repudiated there had been no acceptance by Adam who by submitting a claim for payment was simply pursuing a contractual entitlement. Payment notice-form and requirements See Systems Pipework Ltd v Rotary Building Services Ltd Having regard to the requirements of the subcontract and taking into account the now established principles relating to interim payments: namely the need for a payment application to be in form, substance and intent an interim payment application and free from ambiguity; the payment notice fell short of what was required. A notice intended to have a Draconian effect must make clear what clause of the contract it was issued under, and must set out the sum due. In fact neither the notice nor the accompanying letter said it was a notification of the amount due. Instead it described itself as a Final Account assessment. Nowhere was there identified a particular sum that was said to be due and payable. It was no more than a purported assessment of the value of works carried out which was therefore only one half of the exercise. The relevant clause of the subcontract was nowhere referred to. Pay less notice-form and requirements-effect of failure to give notice See Grove Developments Ltd v S&T (UK) Ltd Guidance was given on the form and requirements of pay less notices. In a dispute concerning a construction contract, an employer whose payment notice or pay less notice was deficient or non-existent could pay the contractor the sum stated to be due in the contractor’s interim application but was then free to commence adjudication proceedings to dispute that the sum paid was the “true” value of the works for which the contractor had claimed. The decisions in ISG Construction Ltd v Seevic College and Galliford Try Building Ltd v Estura Ltd should not be followed.
10
Made with FlippingBook Online newsletter