Jumping to conclusions: Final Statements, liquidated damages and material breaches of natural justice
Michael Comba looks at a recent Technology and Construction Court case that provides useful guidance on the JCT’s procedural requirements on disputing Final Statements.
- Details
CC Construction Limited v Raffaele Mincione [2021] EWHC 2502 (TCC)
In enforcement proceedings, the court considered the role of the Notice of Completion of Making Good in the JCT in determining due dates for final payment, the conclusivity of the Final Statement, and whether the Adjudicator breached rules of natural justice in failing to consider a defence of set-off.
The facts
Mr Mincione (the Employer) appointed CC Construction Limited (the Contractor) to design and build the shell and core of a new house. The contract was an amended form of the JCT Design and Build Contract, 2011 edition (the Contract).
An adjudication followed the refusal of the Employer to pay approximately £485k, and its alleged failure to issue an in-time pay less notice, following service of a Final Statement. The Employer argued a payless notice was issued in time; the due date had been delayed by the submission of a Notice of Completion of Making Good (NCMG). He also argued that the Final Statement was not conclusive owing to his letter in response that disputed its contents.
The Employer further argued that he had a set-off defence by way of liquidated damages for delay that could be levied against the Contractor.
The Adjudicator found for the Contractor; the pay less notice was issued out of time. The Adjudicator also considered he did not have jurisdiction to consider the Employer’s set-off defence as it was not part of the dispute before him.
The judgment
The court agreed with the Adjudicator that the due date was determined by the date of the Final Statement. The NCMG could not be relied upon by the Employer to claim the Final Statement was premature as no defects requiring rectification had been notified.
The judge, however, found the Employer’s letter did prevent the Final Statement becoming conclusive; the Employer was not required to formally commence proceedings. The requirement under clause 1.8.2 of the Contract provided for differing means to dispute a final statement (issuing a notice of dispute and/or commencing formal proceedings) rather than a cumulative means to do so. However, given the court’s findings on the due date, this had little material effect.
In respect of the liquidated damages, the court found that the Adjudicator had materially breached the rules of natural justice by failing to consider the Employer’s arguments. Applying Global Switch, the judge considered that, as the Contractor sought a particular sum to be paid, the Employer was “entitled to rely on all available defences”.
The judge opted to sever the decision, determining that as any set-off only accounted for a portion of the sums claimed (approximately £343k) the balance could be safely enforced.
Analysis
This case provides useful guidance on the JCT’s procedural requirements on disputing Final Statements. It is not necessary for parties to bring a Notice of Dispute (which itself does not need to be in a particular form) and commence formal proceedings.
There is also useful guidance on the role of the NCMG. It is not within the Employer’s gift to use this notice to determine payment due dates to its own advantage.
Finally, adjudicators will need to consider their jurisdiction in circumstances where defences are presented, particularly in payment disputes where the case law is clear that employers may rely on all available defences. Adjudicators’ decisions must be clearly worded to show that defences, even those without merit, have been given due consideration.
Michael Comba is a Solicitor at Sharpe Pritchard LLP.
For further insight and resources on local government legal issues from Sharpe Pritchard, please visit the SharpeEdge page by clicking on the banner below.
This article is for general awareness only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. The law may have changed since this page was first published. If you would like further advice and assistance in relation to any issue raised in this article, please contact us by telephone or email enquiries@sharpepritchard.co.uk
ABOUT SHARPE PRITCHARD We are a national firm of public law specialists, serving local authorities, other public sector organisations and registered social landlords, as well as commercial clients and the third sector. Our team advises on a wide range of public law matters, spanning electoral law, procurement, construction, infrastructure, data protection and information law, planning and dispute resolution, to name a few key specialisms. All public sector organisations have a route to instruct us through the various frameworks we are appointed to. To find out more about our services, please click here. |
Click here to view our archived articles or search below.
|
OUR RECENT ARTICLES The CAT’s approach to Subsidy Decision Reviews: Fast, cheap and simple?
Jul 16, 2025
Olivia Dawson and Oliver Slater consider the Subsidy Control Act’s subsidy challenge regime, the Competition Appeal Tribunal’s (the “CAT’s”) approach to case management and costs, and what the future for challenges to subsidy decisions might look like.
Millbrook Healthcare Limited v Devon County Council – Its impact on local government procurement
Jul 16, 2025
Oliver Dickie, Christopher Watkins and George McLellan dive into the recent High Court judgment on interim relief in procurement claims.
Airport Subsidy Challenged in the CAT
Jul 09, 2025
Oliver Slater, Beatrice Wood and Steve Gummer dive into the latest Competition Appeal Tribunal subsidy control challenge, brought against the Welsh Government's subsidy to Cardiff Airport.
IPA guidance 2025: Managing PFI distress and preparing for expiry
Jul 03, 2025
Aanya Gujral and David Owens dive into the recent guidance published on managing the risks associated with Private Finance Initiative (“PFI”) projects.
Data (Use and Access) Act – Updating Data Protection Law and more
Jul 03, 2025
On the 19th June 2025, the Data Use and Access Bill (“DUA Bill”) received Royal Assent to become the Data Use and Access Act 2025 (“DUA Act”).
Modifying subsidies: What is permitted and what is not?
Jun 24, 2025
Beatrice Wood and Oliver Slater explore recent developments and discuss the process of awarding subsidies.
Getting new PPP right: Smarter tools for smarter infrastructure
Jun 24, 2025
Nicola Sumner, Steve Gummer and Roseanne Serrelli discuss the 'dos and don'ts' of Public-private Partnerships in their new form.
Zones/RABs and heat networks: The path to an investible infrastructure asset class?
Jun 19, 2025
The UK’s new heat network zoning framework (the outlines for which were drawn by the Energy Act 2023) is set to redefine how low‑carbon heating is delivered by creating geographic zones, where district heat networks are the mandated, optimal solution.
Partial debt guarantees- Reviving Investment in UK Water Infrastructure
Jun 17, 2025
Is it Time for a Public Sector Major Infrastructure Debt Guarantor?
Court gives clarity on consultations : R (The National Council for Civil Liberties) and others v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jun 10, 2025
Chloe Woodward and Joe Walker discuss a recent judgment on when engagement with third parties constitute a formal consultation and must therefore adhere to case law on being 'run fairly'.
URS Corporation Limited v BDW Trading Limited [2025] UKSC 21 – Supreme Court hands down significant judgment for the construction industry
May 27, 2025
Helen Arthur explores a recent Supreme Court judgment on building safety in high-rise buildings, explaining what the decision means for defects claims.
Catch me if you can: Local government blazes a trail in increased SME spending
May 21, 2025
Juli Lau and Natasha Barlow take readers through the report published by the BCC on procurement spending.
|
OUR NEXT EVENT
|
OTHER UPCOMING EVENTS
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |