Mr Roger ter Haar KC
Mr Roger ter Haar KC :
There is before the Court the Claimant’s Part 8 Claim seeking declarations as follows:
That Jaevee engaged Mr Fincham to carry out works at the former Mercy nightclub (“the Demolition Works”) pursuant to the terms of a written sub-contract agreement in accordance with the standard terms of business of Jaevee; or, alternatively
Jaevee engaged Mr Fincham to carry out the Demolition Works subject to a basic contract formed by the exchange of written communications by email and whatsapp text messages between April 2023 and in or around 23 May 2023 which included a requirement that Mr Fincham issue applications for payment on a monthly basis.
In any event, regardless of which declaration is made as to the contractual terms of engagement between Jaevee and Mr Fincham, the invoices issued with the reference INV 1078, INV 1079, INV 1081 and INV 1083 did not constitute valid “applications for payment” and/or “default payment notices” within the meanings ascribed by the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (as amended) and/or the Scheme for Construction Contracts Regulations 1998 (as amended).
This claim arises out of an adjudication brought by the Defendant contractor against the Claimant developer. The adjudication was brought on the basis that four invoices issued by Defendant were payable because no payless notices had been served. It was common ground that no payless notices had been served. The main issue in the adjudication was whether the invoices were valid payment applications.
By a decision dated 11 September 2024, the adjudicator decided that the Claimant must pay the sum of £145,896.31, together with additional sums in respect of interest and the adjudicator’s fees. The Claimant has not yet paid those sums.
By the present Part 8 claim, the Claimant seeks to establish that, contrary to the adjudicator’s decision, it was not liable to pay the invoices. As set out above, it seeks declarations as to the terms of the Parties’ agreement and a declaration that the invoices were not valid payment applications.
- Heading
- Mr Roger ter Haar KC
- PROCEDURAL HISTORY
- RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND
- Statutory demand
- The Adjudication
- Adjudication enforcement proceedings
- These Part 8 proceedings
- The Suitability of Part 8 Proceedings
- The Hearing before me
- The Starting Point for Considering the Application of the 1996 Act and the Scheme
- The Terms of the Parties’ Contract
- The First Two Declarations Sought
- The Application of the 1996 Act and the Statutory Scheme to the Invoices
- Did the Invoices set out the basis upon which the sum claimed was calculated?
- Conclusions
![HT-2024-000423 - [2025] EWHC 942 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_yJUntHA.png)