Citation: 112 Con LR 49 TCC
Nature of case: The case turned on the contractual, especially payment, arrangements between client CHG, main contractor and the claimant joinery specialist. CHG argued that the claimant, Sydenham, was a sub-contractor to its main contractor, but the court held that there was a direct contract between Sydenham and CHG for joinery design and construction on the hotel under construction, although partly varied. Sydenham could therefore claim payment and release of retentions directly against CHG for all except the subject matter of the variation to the agreement.
