Search

BLOG

Aspect Contracts (Asbestos) Ltd and Higgins Construction Plc – Analysis

Blog image

One of the most significant construction law cases of 2015 was the Supreme Court decision of Aspect Contracts (Asbestos) Ltd v Higgins Construction plc [2015] UKSC 38[2015] All ER (D) 185 (Jun).

The Supreme Court was asked to decide on issues under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 namely the cause of action and limitation periods for a party’s claim to recover sums paid pursuant to an adjudicator’s decision.

It was held that a paying party has a directly enforceable right to recover any overpayment made pursuant to an adjudication decision. The limitation period for a losing party in adjudication to sue to have the dispute finally determined by a court or tribunal and to recover any overpayment will, therefore, run for six years from the date the payment was made.

The Facts of the Case

Higgins Construction Plc (Higgins) and Aspect Contracts (Asbestos) Ltd (Aspect) entered into a contract in 2004.  Aspects were charged with carrying out an asbestos survey and issuing a report on the Ivybridge Estate in Hounslow.

The construction contract provided for disputes to be referred to adjudication, and the Adjudicator’s decision would only become binding when the dispute was settled by either:

In 2004, after the survey had been carried out, Higgins discovered asbestos which had been missed by Aspect.  They claimed damages of £822,482 plus interest for breach of contract and negligence.

Following adjudication proceedings, Higgins was awarded £658,017 for breach of contract and negligence which was paid in 2009.

There was no formal agreement between Higgins and Aspect to treat the Adjudicator’s decision as final.

No attempt was made to recover the monies that were not awarded, and the limitation periods for the claim in contract and tort expired in 2010 and 2011 respectively.

In 2012, Aspect, commenced proceedings against Higgins, demanding repayment of the £658,017 on the grounds that it was implied in the original contract that if a party was ordered to pay damages after adjudication, they were entitled to have the decision finally determined by one of the three methods described above, and have any overpayment returned to them.

Aspect argued that the cause of action arose from the payment of the Adjudicator's Award, (three years before).  They, therefore, had from 2009 to 2015 to make a claim.

Higgins counter-claimed for the £321,885 it had not been awarded, an action which Aspect argued was barred because the limitation period had expired.

The lower courts all held Higgins claim was time-barred.  The High Court rejected Aspects claim; however, this was subsequently overturned by the Court of Appeal, who held that there was an implied term within the contract that the Adjudicators decision had to be finally determined.

The Significance of the Scheme for Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (the Scheme)

In upholding the Court of Appeal’s decision, the Supreme Court stated that the Scheme gave Aspect the right to have the dispute finally determined by litigation, Arbitration or agreement between the parties.  If this was not the case and there was no ability for the paying party to seek repayment, then the Scheme would make no sense.

The Supreme Court also agreed that Aspect was not time-barred from bringing its claim, as the limitation period began to run from the date of the payment.

Precautions Companies Need to Take Following Adjudication

This decision highlights the need for a number of precautionary measures parties to adjudication need to take to avoid either having to repay money awarded in the past, or being taken to Court for further payments many years after the dispute was apparently ‘settled’.

To avoid either of these situations occurring, it is pertinent too:

1.       Always insist on a final determination of an Adjudicator's decision, either by agreement or further legal methods such as Arbitration.  The reason the Supreme Court held that it would make no sense if there was no ability to seek repayment was because adjudication was seen by the Judges as a "speedy, provisional measure”, pending a final decision.

2.       Add a provision in the construction contract that an Adjudicator's decision is final after a certain date.

This was the first decision handed down by the Supreme Court on an adjudication matter, and the lower courts are obliged to follow its findings.  Therefore, it is imperative that you seek professional legal advice when drafting adjudication provisions for a construction contract, to ensure you do not receive any unpleasant surprises with regards to repayments of Adjudicator's Awards.

Fisher Scoggins Waters are a London based law firm who are experts in construction, manufacturing and engineering matters. If you have any questions regarding Adjudication or require legal advice in some other area, please phone us on 0207 993 6960.

Follow our company page on linkedin for future updates and our views on the latest developments

Please leave a comment

Enter the name you would like to appear on the comment.
(required)
Enter the email you would like to use to get updates. You email is not visible and can not be used by other users.
(required)
Enter you comment help.

 
  Post Comment

Book Launch - 27 November 2019

Will you be joining us?

HSE and Environment Agency prosecution: A new climate

27 November 2019 | Bloomsbury, 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP

Event Registration

First name
Surname
Email address
Any additional information
Post/Event URL
Post/Event Title
CAPTCHA image
Enter the code shown above in the box below.

Tag Cloud

‘fit for purpose’ obligations 2016 Adjudication adjudication lawyer Adjudication Notice Adjudication process appeal appointing an adjudicator Arbitration Artificial Intelligence Asbestos benefits of off-site construction bonfires book launch breach of contract Brexit Building Defects business interruption Business Interruption Insurance CDM CDM Regulations chambers and partners Charlotte Waters civil proceedings claim payments Claims client COMAH commercial contracts complex construction claims Compliance compulsory sprinklers in warehouses consequential loss construction Construction Construction & Engineering construction contract Construction contract dispute Construction contracts Construction dispute construction dispute lawyer construction dispute resolution construction dispute resolution solicitor construction dispute solicitors Construction Disputes Resolution Construction industry Construction Magazine contracts Contribution claim Corporate Manslaughter Corporate Responsibility costs criminal investigation criminal proceedings cut out fuse Defective Building Work Defective Premises Act developer developers disadvantages of off-site construction Disaster disaster claim Disasters Dispute dispute resolution Disputes DPA Dr Louise Smail Emergency response Emergency Response Solicitors enforcement notices Engineering Engineering dispute Environment Agency environment law Environmental Environmental Agency Environmental damage Environmental Law environmental waste EU EU Procurement Europe Evidence Expert evidence expert witness falls from height Fatal Accidents fee for intervention Fees For Intervention FFI FIDIC Contracts fine Fines Fire Fire Claim fire claims fire damage fire damage lawyers fire sprinkler systems fireworks flood flood claim flood damage food hygiene Fracking fracking claims Fraudulent claims FSW Gross Negligence Manslaughter Guide to Adjudication H&S fine increases; health and safety fines; Health & Safety health & safety breach health & safety sentences health & safety sentencing guidelines health & safety sentencing large corporations health and safety health and safety Health and Safety Executive heave Higher Fines Honey Rose v R How to appoint an adjudicator HSE Insolvency insolvent insurance Insurance Act 2015 insurance bill Insurance Broker insurance claim insurance cover Insurance Disclosure Insurance Disclosure insurance dispute insurance dispute solicitors Insurance Warranties ISO 45001 join us joint venture Judicial Review latest news Law Lawyer legal 500 legal advice privilege Legal Expense Insurance legal professional privilege legal retainers Liability Liquidated Damages Litigation litigation privilege local bodies magistrates’ courts Major Property Damage Manufacturing Martinisation material breach Mediation Michael Appleby Micheal appleby modern methods of construction (MMC) modular construction Mr. Gutaj Notice of adjudication panel firms party wall Performance Bond planning powers of an adjudicator pre-fabrication procurement procurement injunction procurement model Property Damage property danage Public Contract Public Contracts Public Contracts Regulations public procurement public procurement challenges public procurement relationship public sector Publicity Order PUWER recruitment regulation 11 Relief Resolution riot Riot Compensation Act 2016 Risk Risk Assessment safety in the workplace Sanctions Self-build sentence sentencing sentencing guidelines Serious Fraud Office SME Sneller Sony specialist risk and safety consultant Statute Barred Sub-Contractors subrogation subsidance subsidence TCC TCC Guidance team Technology and Construction Court The Adjudicator’s Decision and Costs The Enterprise Act The Lord Young Reforms The Powers Of An Adjudicator The Public Contracts Regulations 2015 The referral notice and response Training tree root UK Underwriters Warehouse insurance Warranties waste water damage WEEE What is Adjudication? what should an adjudication refal notice contain work equipment

Search The Site

Accreditations

 

The Legal 500 - The Clients Guide to Law Firms


Contact Us Now For Advice And Guidance

Enter your name
Enter your surname
Enter your Email
Ask us a Question?