Introduction
This case concerns a contract for the performance of works by the Defendant for the
Claimant. Pursuant to the framework agreement dated 20 January 2022 and the Work Order Number:11500 dated 7 September 2023, work was to be done by the Defendant at the area known as Blyth Phase 3.
This judgment follows the hearing of a Part 8 claim arising out of an adjudication. The Adjudicator decided that the Defendant had a common law right to recover damages for loss of profit and/or mobilisation and demobilisation as a result of the Claimant’s e-mail to the Defendant dated 24 October 2023 stating that works under the Work Order would not commence imminently but would most likely take place the following year in 2024.
The Claimant asserts that on a proper review of the facts and contractual provisions, the e-mail amounted to a variation of the contract and not a breach of contract. Further, if the e-mail did constitute a variation, that variation would not entitle the Defendant to the losses claimed, but only an entitlement to have its claim valued by the Claimant in accordance with the contract.
The Claimant seeks a declaration that it is not and was not in breach of the terms of the Blyth Work Order, or the framework agreement, when it informed the Defendant of the postponement of the Blyth Phase 3 Work Order. In addition, the Claimant seeks a declaration that to the extent it is in breach of either the Blyth Work Order or the framework agreement, it is not liable to the Defendant for the mobilisation and/or demobilisation costs or loss of profit allegedly suffered by the Defendant.
The Defendant asserts that the application made by the Claimant is not appropriate for Part 8 proceedings because there is conflicting evidence of fact. Further, it asserts that the Court should not make the declarations sought because there is no merit to them.
The Claimant was represented by Mr Adam Beaumont of counsel. Whilst the Defendant was previously represented by Mr. David Fearon of counsel, who made written submissions on behalf of the Defendant earlier in the proceedings, there was no attendance nor any representation for the Defendant at the hearing. I have, of course, considered the written submissions made by the Defendant.
- 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
![HT-2024-LDS-000014 - [2024] EWHC 3067 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_yJUntHA.png)