The Supreme Court has recently delivered a pivotal ruling that elucidates the status of collateral warranties within the framework of construction contracts. In the case Abbey Healthcare (Mill Hill) Ltd v Augusta 2008 LLP (formerly Simply Construct (UK) LLP) [2024] UKSC 23, the Court concluded that a collateral warranty does not constitute a “construction contract” under the Construction Act unless it embodies a separate or distinct obligation to perform construction operations for the beneficiary.
Focus360 Energy: property compliance services – pre-planning to post-construction. Learn more.
Collateral warranties are agreements designed to furnish a third party with a direct contractual relationship with a contractor or consultant, primarily to grant the third party a right of action in the event of defectively executed construction work. However, the Supreme Court has now provided clarity that the principal aim of a collateral warranty is not the execution of construction operations. Instead, it serves to ensure that the construction work carried out under the main building contract is conducted correctly. The Court’s decision underscores that a collateral warranty which merely assures the beneficiary that construction operations will be conducted under the primary building contract does not meet the criteria of a construction contract, as it does not entail any actual construction work being performed for the beneficiary.
The Supreme Court’s rationale hinges on distinguishing between obligations that are merely derivative of the primary building contract and those that are separate and distinct. The Court pointed out that the beneficiary of a collateral warranty typically lacks control over the construction operations. For example, the beneficiary cannot instruct how the works are carried out, order variations, or suspend or terminate the works. This lack of control highlights the disconnection between the collateral warranty and the actual execution of construction operations.
This landmark ruling carries significant ramifications for the construction industry. It implies that most collateral warranties will not be considered construction contracts under the Construction Act. This distinction is crucial because the Construction Act encompasses specific payment-related provisions that are generally inapplicable to collateral warranties, given that the consideration provided by the beneficiary is typically nominal. The Supreme Court’s decision delineates a clear boundary, ensuring that collateral warranties generally fall outside the scope of the Construction Act. This newfound clarity benefits all parties involved by reducing the uncertainty that could stem from varying interpretations of collateral warranties.
Moreover, the Supreme Court’s ruling overrules the first instance decision in Parkwood Leisure Ltd v Laing O’Rourke Wales and West Ltd, which had previously suggested that certain collateral warranties could be classified as construction contracts. This overruling reinforces the Court’s stance on the matter, solidifying a uniform interpretation.
In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Abbey Healthcare (Mill Hill) Ltd v Augusta 2008 LLP, the construction industry now has a definitive understanding of the status of collateral warranties. This decision brings much-needed certainty to contractors, consultants, and beneficiaries, and is likely to influence the drafting and interpretation of collateral warranties in future construction projects, ensuring they are used appropriately and within the bounds of the law.
Late payment and default notice issues under JCT contracts have long been a thorny subject in the construction industry, often precipitating disputes and financial strain. The Construction Act offers remedies such as adjudication and payment mechanisms to address these concerns. A recent Court of Appeal decision in Providence Building Services Ltd v Hexagon Housing Association Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 962 has illuminated the termination provisions for late or non-payment under the 2016 JCT Design and Build (D&B) form.
Under the 2016 JCT D&B form, if an employer fails to pay an amount due by the final payment date, the contractor is entitled to issue a default notice. Should the employer fail to pay within 28 days of receiving the default notice, the contractor can terminate its employment under the contract. The Court of Appeal had to decide whether the contractor could terminate its employment if the employer pays within the 28 days but is later delinquent with another payment.
The Court of Appeal ruled that the clause permits the contractor to terminate its employment if the employer is late with another payment after the initial default notice. The Court underscored that the clause’s intention is to compel the employer to adhere to their payment obligations by the final date. A recurrence of a previous default activates the contractor’s right to terminate. This interpretation represents a commercially acceptable contractual risk allocation, where an employer who has previously defaulted on their payment obligations is essentially “skating on thin ice,” as any subsequent late payment could culminate in contract termination.
While termination is a severe remedy, other options are available to contractors facing late payment issues, such as suspension of work and resorting to adjudication. However, these remedies often entail additional costs and delays, making them less immediate and satisfactory compared to termination. Additionally, the Court of Appeal provided guidance on interpreting standard forms of contracts, focusing on the precise wording used and advising caution against comparing earlier and later versions of contract forms, which can complicate and increase the cost of the interpretation process.
In a related development, the court in Mornington 2000 LLP v The Secretary of State for Health And Social Care established principles for determining whether documents held by one party are under the practical control of another. This is particularly relevant in construction disputes where documents held by subcontractors may be required for disclosure. The court elucidated that there must be an arrangement or understanding that the document holder will make them available for search, and while the relationship between the parties matters, it is not conclusive.
As the construction industry grapples with the complexities of payment disputes and contract interpretation, these legal developments serve as essential references for contractors, employers, and legal practitioners alike. The clarification on collateral warranties and the termination provisions for late payments under the JCT D&B form underscore the importance of timely adherence to contractual obligations and provide a clearer framework for navigating potential disputes.
Be the first to comment