Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2012] All ER (D) 74 (Oct)
Neutral Citation: [2012] EWHC 2644 (TCC)
Court: Queen's Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court
Judge:

Akenhead J

Representation Justin Mort (instructed by Fenwick Elliott LLP) for the claimant.
  Simon Hughes QC (instructed by DAC Beachcroft LLP) for the defendant.
Judgment Dates: 8 October 2012

Catchwords

Building contract - Construction - Sub-contract - Claimant engaging defendant sub-contractor for construction project - Defendant failing to perform - Claimant taking possession of defendant's equipment under sub-contract clause - Claimant seeking declarations equipment deemed claimant's property and defendant not entitled to remove - Whether title and ownership of equipment passing to and remaining with claimant.

The Case

Building contract Construction. The contractor sought declarations that it owned the sub-contractor's equipment under a clause of the sub-contract. The Technology and Construction Court held that permanent ownership of the equipment was not intended to pass to the contractor but that it had possessory rights over it until the work was completed. Accordingly, the court made the declarations.

Practice Areas

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