By Guy Bate2018-09-13T23:00:00
In Grove Developments vs S&T (UK) , Justice Coulson commented on the injustice that can flow from payment mechanisms in the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996
In Grove Developments vs S&T (UK) , Justice Coulson commented on the injustice that can flow from payment mechanisms in the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. He identified the difference between the sum stated as due or as an interim payment in consequence of failure to serve a pay less notice and the sum actually due, which is the true valuation of the works.
Coulson awarded Grove a declaration that it was entitled to adjudicate the true value of S&T’s payment application even though Grove’s payment notice and pay less notice might have been invalid.
In a recent case, the court had to decide if a contractor could wind-up a developer that had not paid an adjudication award, even though the contractor had a judgement for the award. It took just a day for the judge to throw out the winding-up petition and order the contractor to pay the developer’s costs in full.
You must be logged in to continue
Register for free to finish this article
Registration includes the following benefits:
To access this article REGISTER NOW
Four articles not enough? SUBSCRIBE for unlimited access to over 100 weekly articles and our comprehensive archive. For as little as £5 per week.