Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2011] All ER (D) 217 (Oct)
Neutral Citation: [2011] EWCA Civ 1203
Court: Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Judge:

Longmore, Rimer LJJ and Warren J

Representation Patrick Green and Elizabeth Humphreys (instructed by Legal Department of the CITB) for the claimant.
  Jolyon Maugham (instructed by Michael Welch & Co) for the defendant.
Judgment Dates: 26 October 2011

Catchwords

Contract - Construction - Purpose of contract - Defendant hiring workers via intermediary - Defendant alleging industrial training levy payable to claimant not being payable in respect of workers hired through intermediary - High Court determining defendant liable to pay levy on workers with whom it had not directly contracted - Defendant appealing - Whether defendant liable to pay levy on workers with whom it had not directly contracted - Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2009, art 8(1).

The Case

Contract Construction. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing an appeal, held that art8(1) of the Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2009, did not contemplate that parties to a labour only agreement would give evidence about their state of mind when they made the contract and it followed that the purpose of the contract had to be ascertained primarily from its terms while taking into account any relevant background.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.