||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 202 (May)
|| EWHC 1396 (TCC)
||Queen's Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court
Mr Justice Akenhead
||Anthony Speaight QC (instructed by Ashfords LLP) for the claimant.
||Marc Rowlands QC (instructed by DWF LLP) for the defendant.
||20 May 2015
Contract - Construction - Pre-contract negotiation - Parties entering into repair and maintenance term contract - Over 12,000 small jobs being done and paid for on basis not recognised as such by contract - Defendant subsequently claiming overcharging having occurred as result of payment system - Defendant making deductions from payments - Claimant seeking repayment of deductions - Whether basis of payment effectively agreed or otherwise enforceable by way of estoppel.
Contract Construction. The claimant contractor sought to recover sums of 300,522.03 deducted by the defendant social landlord in respect of work done on its properties, in circumstances where work had previously been done and paid for on a basis that the contract between the parties did not recognise as such. The Technology and Construction court held that there had been an effective estoppel, most obviously by convention but also by representation, such that it would be unjust and unconscionable for the defendant to make and retain the deduction made.
- An Official transcript is the final version of the judgment prepared by shorthand writers. LexisLibrary contains all judgments from the High Court and aboveView Judgment
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases