Eagle raised a variety of defences to Jonjohnson’s claim, three of which were given relatively short shrift by the judge: Mr Judkins decided that absent a payment or pay less notice from Eagle, the sums set out in the March application for payment were the sums that were due and payable.Įagle did not pay and so Jonjohnson commenced enforcement proceedings, which were heard by Jefford J. This time Mr Judkins was appointed as the adjudicator and the dispute was based on the March 2016 application for payment as Jonjohnson’s default payment notice. Therefore, Eagle had no obligation to pay against the April notice because of section 110B(4) of the Construction Act 1996, which says an unpaid party cannot issue a second payment notice if the contract permits or requires the payee to submit an application for payment, and an effective application has been given.įollowing an aborted second adjudication, the third adjudication got underway. Ms Milligan decided that the March 2016 application was an effective “claim by the payee” for the purposes of paragraph 12 of the Scheme. Eagle had accepted the adjudicator’s jurisdiction was limited in this way, as did the adjudicator. It is important to mention at this point that Jonjohnson had sought to limit the adjudicator’s jurisdiction so that she could only consider whether Eagle had to pay the sums set out in the April default payment notice. Ms Janey Milligan was appointed (the first adjudication). Take the £20k from the £38k for phase 1 leaves £18,843…”Įagle did not pay anything, which prompted Jonjohnson to issue a payment notice in April 2016 under section 110B(2) of the Construction Act 1996 (the April default payment notice). Still no money was forthcoming from Eagle and so Jonjohnson referred the dispute to adjudication. Our costs for breaking out and re-concrete phase 2 was in excess of £20k. Phase 2 had to be redone due to your steel not to drawing. The steelworks were completed in October 2015 and, in March 2016, Jonjohnson applied for (I assume) the balance of the sums it said were due to it. Eagle responded by email saying: If you have a head for heights, and like being amongst the leaves, it looks like you’ll get a bird’s eye view of the Forestry Commission’s tree collection at Westonbirt. It seems apt that one party was called Eagle!ĭespite the Construction Act 1996 being in force for almost 20 years, the parties’ contract did not include adjudication or payment provisions in accordance with the Act, and therefore the provisions of the Scheme for Construction Contracts 1998 applied. This was a dispute arising out of a contract for the steelwork for the foundations of the Westonbirt Arboretum Treetops Walkways. Jonjohnson Construction Ltd v Eagle Building Services Ltd It’s a great shame that an increasing amount of cases aren’t appearing on BAILII because it means that not all practitioners get to read them. Unfortunately, it’s another one of those cases that isn’t on BAILII, so not all of you reading this will have access to it. It’s been a while since I’ve blogged about a payment notice case, and so the case of Jonjohnson Construction Ltd v Eagle Building Services Ltd caught my eye.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |