Sleaford Building Services Limited v Isoplus Piping Systems Limited
[2023] EWHC 969 (TCC)
Lidl Great Britain Limited v Closed Circuit Cooling Limited t/a 3CL
11 September 2023
[2023] EWHC 2243 (TCC)
High Court
Lidl argued they shouldn't have to pay 3CL because 3CL messed up their paperwork. The judge said most of 3CL's mistakes didn't matter, and one was actually Lidl's fault for not following their own agreement. The judge also said the contract's rules about when final payment was due were wrong, meaning Lidl had to pay.
Key Facts
- •Lidl Great Britain Limited (Lidl) and Closed Circuit Cooling Limited t/a 3CL entered into a framework agreement for industrial refrigeration and air-conditioning works.
- •A dispute arose concerning payment under Application for Payment 19 (AFP19) for £781,986.22.
- •The dispute went to adjudication, where the adjudicator ruled in favour of 3CL.
- •Lidl challenged the adjudicator's decision via a Part 8 claim seeking declaratory relief and 3CL sought summary judgment of the adjudicator's decision via a Part 7 claim.
- •The court heard both claims concurrently.
Legal Principles
Procedure in cases involving a Part 7 summary judgment application to enforce an adjudicator’s decision and a competing Part 8 application.
TCC 2022 Guide, A & V Building Solutions Limited v J & B Hopkins Limited [2023] EWCA Civ 54, Sleaford Building Services Ltd v Isoplus Piping Systems Ltd [2023] EWHC 969 (TCC)
Breach of natural justice in adjudication cases.
Cantillon Limited v Urvasco Limited [2008] BLR 250, Roe Brickwork v Wates Construction [2013] EWHC 3417 (TCC), Corebuild v Cleaver [2019] EWHC 2170 (TCC)
Estoppel by convention.
Kersfield Developments (Bridge Road) Limited v Bray and Slaughter Limited [2017] EWHC 15 (TCC)
Construction of contractual conditions precedent.
Lewison’s The Interpretation of Contracts (7th edition), Astrazeneca UK Ltd v Albemarle International Corp [2011] EWHC 1574 (Comm), Heritage Oil and Gas Ltd v Tullow Uganda Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1048
Compliance with s.110(1)(b) of the Housing Grants, Construction, and Regeneration Act 1996.
Housing Grants, Construction, and Regeneration Act 1996, Rochford Construction Limited v Kilhan Construction Limited [2020] EWHC 941 (TCC), Alstom Signalling Limited v Jarvis Facilities Limited [2004] EWHC 1285 (TCC), VHE Construction plc v RBSTB Trust Co Limited [2000] BLR 187, Manor Asset Ltd v Demolition Services Ltd [2016] EWHC 222 (TCC), Volkerlaser Limited v Nottingham City Council [2016] EWHC 1501 (TCC)
Outcomes
Part 7 claim succeeds; summary judgment for 3CL.
No genuine defence to enforcement of the adjudicator's decision; Lidl's Part 8 declarations fail.
Declarations 1, 2, and 4.1 rejected.
Compliance with certain requirements in clause 7.4.3(a) was not a condition precedent to the validity of payment applications.
Declarations 3 and 4.2 rejected.
Service of AFP19 by email alone was sufficient; estoppel by convention applied.
Declarations 6 and 7 rejected.
The contract's final date for payment provisions did not comply with s.110(1)(b) of the Act; the requirement for a compliant VAT invoice was not a condition precedent.
Similar Cases
Battersea Project Phase 2 Development Company Limited v QFS Scaffolding Limited
[2024] EWHC 591 (TCC)
Iluminesia Limited (t/a Alterego Facades) v RFL Facades Limited
[2023] EWHC 3122 (TCC)
Bexhill Construction Ltd v Kingsmead Homes Ltd
[2023] EWHC 2344 (TCC)
Elements (Europe) Limited v FK Building Limited
[2023] EWHC 726 (TCC)