University of Brighton v Dovehouse Interiors Ltd
2014
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
UK
CORAM
- THE HON MRS JUSTICE CARR DBE
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Construction Law
- Contract Law
2014
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The University of Brighton engaged Dovehouse for construction work but disputes arose. Dovehouse issued a Notice of Adjudication, which the University challenged. The case examines the timeliness and validity of Dovehouse's adjudication under the Scheme for Construction Contracts and the contract's conclusive evidence clauses. The court ruled in favor of Dovehouse, holding that the issuance of the Notice was sufficient to commence proceedings.
Judgment
Mrs Justice Carr :
Introduction
This is a claim issued by the claimant university (“the University”) under Part 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules for declaratory relief against the defendant contractor (“Dovehouse”). The University challenges the validity of a notice of adjudication served by Dovehouse pursuant to Part 1 of the Schedule to the Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998 (“the Scheme”). It contends that the notice was ineffective to commence proceedings for the purpose of a “conclusive evidence” clause in a construction contract between the parties.
The relevant facts
By a contract dated 26 th March 2012, executed as a deed and incorporating the terms of the Intermediate Building Contract with Contractor’s Design 2005 Edition, Revision 2 (2009), as amended by a Schedule of Further Modifications (“the Contract”), the University engaged Dovehouse to carry out the fit out of University Centre, Priory Square, Hastings for a Contract Sum of £2,553,031.29. By clause 9.2 of the Contract the Scheme was to apply in the event of a dispute or difference arising under the Contract which either party wished to refer to adjudication. The date for completion of the works was stated as 29 th July 2012.
Practical completion was not certified until 30 th October 2012. The parties fell into dispute broadly on the following issues :
Dovehouse’s entitlement to extensions of time to the date for completion;
the proper valuation of adjustments to the Contract Sum in respect of instructed variations to the works;
Dovehouse’s liability for the University’s costs to address incomplete and defective works;
Dovehouse’s entitlement to recover loss and expense in respect of delay and/or disruption to the works.
On 9 th December 2013 the Contract Administrator issued her Final Certificate pursuant to clause 4.14.1 of the Contract (“the Final Certificate”). A gross valuation of the works in the sum of £2,099,629.23 was certified. On 12 th December 2013 the University served a Payment Notice on Dovehouse pursuant to clause 4.14.2 of the Contract and/or under paragraph 9 of Part II of the Scheme and section 11A of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (as amended) (“the Payment Notice”) (“the Act”). Dovehouse disagreed with the sum stated as due in the Final Certificate and in the Payment Notice. So as to allow time for negotiation and settlement, on 23 rd December 2013 the University and Dovehouse agreed in w