Elements (Europe) Limited v FK Building Limited
[2023] EWHC 726 (TCC)
My Contracts Limited v 74 Hamilton Terrace Freehold Limited
28 August 2024
[2024] EWHC 2896 (TCC)
High Court
Two companies disagreed about when a bill had to be sent. The contract said the bill had to arrive within four months of a specific date. The court decided the bill was sent one day late, rejecting arguments that the deadline should be extended for holidays or only count business days. The court said they don't change contracts, they just interpret them.
Key Facts
- •Dispute over the construction of a JCT Design and Build Contract 2016 between My Contracts Limited (contractor) and 74 Hamilton Terrace Freehold Limited (developer).
- •The dispute centers on Article 12, concerning "Façade Costs" arising from the collapse of a building façade.
- •The developer served a notification of façade costs on July 3, 2023.
- •Article 12, paragraph 6, stipulates that such notification must be received "not later than four months after the date of this Contract" (March 2, 2023).
Legal Principles
Corresponding date rule for calculating time periods in contracts.
Lewison on The Interpretation of Contracts (8th Ed), paragraph 15.10
Contract interpretation – courts interpret, they do not rewrite contracts.
Wood v Capita Insurance [2017] A.C. 1173 at [10] to [14]
Construction of contractual time limits – consideration of whether excluding public holidays or requiring notification on a business day is implied.
Elements (Europe) Limited v FK Building Limited [2023] EWHC 726 (TCC) at [40] to [42]
Outcomes
The court granted the claimant's declaration.
The notification of façade costs was served on July 3, 2023, one day after the four-month deadline calculated using the corresponding date rule. The court rejected the defendant's arguments to extend the deadline to include public holidays or to require notification only on a business day, emphasizing that the court interprets, but does not rewrite contracts. The court noted that a notification received on July 2nd would have been valid.
Similar Cases
Clarion Housing Association Limited v Crest Nicholson Operations Limited
[2023] EWHC 620 (TCC)
Andrew Bellis v Sky House Construction Ltd
[2023] EWHC 1473 (TCC)
Battersea Project Phase 2 Development Company Limited v QFS Scaffolding Limited
[2024] EWHC 591 (TCC)
Providence Building Services Limited v Hexagon Housing Association Limited
[2024] EWCA Civ 962