![HT-2024-LDS-000014 - [2024] EWHC 3067 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_yJUntHA.png){kind=logo}
Conclusions
Conclusion
For all of the reasons previously given, I make the declarations as sought by the Claimant in the following terms:
That the Claimant is not and was not in breach of the terms of the Blyth Work Order, or the Framework Agreement by informing the Defendant of the postponement of the Blyth Phase 3 works via its email from Richard Cameron to Peter Shepherd, dated 24 October 2023.
To the extent the Claimant is in breach in respect of declaration a. above, the Claimant is not liable to the Defendant for the mobilisation, demobilisation or loss of profit allegedly suffered by the Defendant under the Blyth Work Order, or the Framework Agreement.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Background and Evidence
- Interpretation
- Commencement and Completion
- The Works shall be carried out within standard working hours set out in the Order Information
- The Employer shall determine and notify the Contractor in writing of the date when the Works are complete
- 11 Variations
- Any oral instructions given by the Employer requiring a Variation shall be confirmed in writing by the Employer
- The Law
- The Issues
- Is the Claimant’s application inappropriate to be decided in Part 8 proceedings?
- Did the email of 24 October 2023 amount to a variation or a cancellation of the Work Order in breach of contract?
- Did the terms of the Work Order allow the implication of a term preventing the Claimant from postponing the works?
- In any event, if there was a breach of any such implied term, is the Defendant precluded from recovering loss of profit or mobilisation and demobilisation costs as a result of
- Conclusions