header-logo header-logo

26 June 2015
Issue: 7658 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Building contract

Aspect Contracts (Asbestos) Ltd v Higgins Construction plc [2015] UKSC 38, [2015] All ER (D) 185 (Jun)

Following an adjudication pursuant to provisions implied into a construction contract under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, the claimant, A Ltd, made a payment to the defendant, H plc. A Ltd subsequently sought to recover that sum, having commenced proceedings after the time had elapsed when H plc, could bring any claim founded on the original breach of contract or tort. The Supreme Court dismissed H plc’s appeal, deciding that it was a necessary legal consequence of the scheme implied by the Act into the parties’ contractual relationship that A Ltd had to have a directly enforceable right to recover any overpayment to which the adjudicator’s decision could be shown to have led, once there had been a final determination of the dispute.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll