Citation: [2022] EWHC 1152 (TCC)
The Court dismissed a Part 8 claim seeking a declaration regarding the validity of a pay less notice, finding the one that had been served related to a later application for payment. Consequently, the sum applied for became the notified sum under section 111 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996.
Smith J held that pay less notices must be referable to a particular payment notice and/or payment application and must relate to a particular payment cycle.
The judgment once again highlights that the only way to avoid a smash and grab adjudication and a payment liability in circumstances where one might not otherwise exist (the pay less notice showed an overpayment to Enisca) is to ensure that valid payment and pay less notices are served.
Piers Stansfield QC (instructed by Pinsent Masons LLP) appeared for the Claimant and Alexander Nissen QC (instructed by Quigg Golden Solicitors) appeared for the Defendant.
