Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

A & V Building Solution Limited v J & B Hopkins Limited

3 October 2024
[2024] EWHC 2516 (TCC)
High Court
Two companies had a big argument over money. A judge already made some decisions, but there were still some things to decide. The judge refused to change earlier decisions, worked out how much VAT should be paid (but said if the tax man disagrees, they can ask again), and put off deciding exactly how much each company should pay until the costs are sorted. The judge also explained that it's important to raise any problems early on.

Key Facts

  • A & V Building Solution Limited (A & V) and J & B Hopkins Limited (J&BH) were involved in a sub-contract dispute.
  • Six previous judgments had been handed down in this and an associated action.
  • The Fifth judgment determined almost all issues, except for adjudicators' fees and interest.
  • The Sixth judgment dealt with adjudicators' fees and interest.
  • New issues arose regarding the calculation of the sum due for measured works, VAT, the Construction Industry Scheme (CIS), interest, and sums due to J&BH.

Legal Principles

Res judicata: The court cannot revisit issues already decided in previous judgments unless there are compelling reasons.

Common Law

Construction Industry Scheme (CIS): Rules governing tax deductions for subcontractors.

Finance Act 2004, Section 61(1); Income Tax (Construction Industry Scheme) Regulations 2005, Regulation 7(1)

VAT application in construction contracts: Determining the correct VAT rate and application based on the nature of the works and agreements between parties.

UK VAT legislation

Outcomes

Rejected A & V's request to correct an alleged error in the amount already paid by J&BH.

The court lacked jurisdiction to correct the 'error' as it was a matter already decided in the Fifth judgment and not properly raised as a correction.

Awarded VAT at 20% on 5.66% of the remaining sum due, totaling £1,069.22.

Based on the parties' agreement and documentation provided by J&BH regarding the application of VAT in the project, which was largely zero-rated with a small portion subject to the standard rate. Liberty to apply for variation within 6 months if HMRC disagrees with the application of the rate.

Deferred the decision on the CIS deduction.

The court deemed this issue relevant to a potential stay of execution and requested further evidence at a later stage on the implications of the CIS deduction on the amounts due and when they should have been paid.

Rejected J&BH's argument to limit interest on Mr. Blizzard's fees to the net amount.

This argument should have been raised during the Sixth judgment's consideration or as a correction to it; it was deemed too late to raise this point.

Deferred the determination of the final sums due and payment schedule until after costs are decided.

The final sums depend heavily on the court's cost orders.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.