Westwood Structural Services Ltd V Blyth Wood Park Management Company Ltd
It was not the case, as the employer, that it was under no obligation to make any further payment to the contractor by the application of clause 7.2. the JCT Minor Works Form 98, including the sums found due to it in the adjudication
9 December, 2008
The contract incorporated the JCT Minor Works Form 98. The contract administrator wrote to the contractor stating that it should carry out no further works. The contractor contended that the letter amounted to a repudiation of the contract. It left the site and commenced an adjudication in which it sought a declaration to that effect. The contractor also claimed the unpaid sums due for the works it had carried out up to the time it was told to carry out no further works. About a week after the adjudication had begun the contract administrator sent a letter to the contractor purporting to determine the contract. The employer defended the contractor's claim on the basis that no further sum was due to the contractor under clause 7.2.3 of the JCT Minor Works Form 98 until the works? completion. The adjudicator decided that the employer did not repudiate the contract and that the contractor should be paid the sums claimed. The employer started a fresh adjudication in which it contended that it was under no obligation to make any further payment to the contractor (including the sums found due to it in the first adjudication) in consequence of the application of clause 7.2.3. This clause provided that on the determination of the contractor's employment the employer was not bound to make any further payment to the contractor which might be due to it until after completion of the works. The adjudicator and Coulson J rejected the employer's contention. Coulson J held that the adjudicator made the following two findings in respect of clause 7.2.3 of the JCT Minor Works Form 98 which both constituted a complete answer to the employer's contention. The first was that the sums which he found to be due in his first decision were due in any event and therefore not caught by the words "any further payment to the contractor that may be due" in clause 7.2.3. The second was his rejection of the employer's submission that its determination of the contractor's employment occurred before the sums had become due to the contractor with the result that the employer was not were entitled to rely on clause 7.2.3 as a defence to the claim.