Farrar Out

- Details
Following the insolvency of Farrar Construction Ltd (“Farrar”), one of Farrar’s major creditors – Levi Solicitors LLP (“Levi”) – sought direction from the Court that a contingent creditor’s proof of debt should have been rejected. The contingent creditor, JKR Property Development Limited (“JKR”), had employed Farrar as contractor under a JCT Minor Works 2011 Contract (the “Contract”). JKR claimed it had overpaid for the works following the issuing of a final certificate under the Contract and their proof of debt was accepted by the company voluntary agreement (CVA) supervisor.
Bringing an application under the Insolvency Rules 1986, Levi argued that JKR’s proof of debt should not have been accepted as it had not been established. Specifically, Levi contended that JKR could not claim repayment of sums paid to the Contractor because the procedure set out in clause 6.7 (relating to the consequences of termination for insolvency or corruption) had not been followed. In the alternative, Levi claimed that JKR’s failure to issue a valid Final Certificate was fatal to their claim.
To decide the case, the Court was required to both:
- Establish which of the Contractor’s creditors possessed the burden of proof in the case (JKR in seeking to establish their claim, or Levi in seeking to disrupt the supervisors’ decision); and
- Interpret the provisions of the Contract from which the proof of debt had been derived.
On the first issue, the Court said that it was not the correctness of the supervisor’s decision which was at issue, but rather whether the disputed claim had been established. As such, the case constituted a “re-hearing” of the issue and so “the proving creditor should have to make good their claim” to ensure the “legal and evidential burden” were able to coincide. Accordingly, the court held that the burden of proof lay with JKR..
On the second issue, the Court interpreted the payment provisions of the Contract with reference to the relevant provisions of the Construction Act and in accordance with ordinary principles of contractual interpretation. In a judgment which will be of interest to many in the construction industry, the Court held:
- That the JCT regime for interim and final certificate at clauses 4.3 – 4.8 of the Contract fell away post-insolvency (regardless of whether the Employer had terminated the Contractor’s engagement) and the contractual regimes governing termination for insolvency took their place as the means of determining the sums which were due; and
- That the three-month time limit for the Architect/Contract Administrator to issue a certificate setting out the balance payable between the parties is not a strict time limit and so a certificate could be issued at any time before the expiry of the limitation period.
On interpretation of the Contract, the Court held that JKR’s proof of debt should be accepted by the supervisor of the CVA (albeit for a marginally revised sum as agreed by the parties).
CommentThis case clarified that where one creditor to an insolvent contractor disputes another creditor’s proof of debt, the burden of proof lies with the creditor seeking to establish its debt.
For JCT employers who suffer the misfortune of having to deal with an insolvent contractor, this case should provide clarification that the relevant termination provisions will apply automatically upon insolvency, replacing the operation of the ordinary interim payment process in clauses 4.3 – 4.8. In addition, the Court’s conclusion that the three-month time limit for setting out the balance payable between the parties following Contractor insolvency is not a strict time limit is likely to reassure employers. For those in a similar position, this case may provide confidence that a claim will not be time-barred if that timescale is not complied with.
Clare Mendelle is a Professional Support Lawyer and James Goldthorpe is a Paralegal 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
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |