Citation: [2025] EWHC 942 (TCC)
James Frampton (instructed by Andrew Rush of Archor) acted for the successful Defendant to this Part 8. There were two issues:
- When and on what terms had the parties entered a subcontract?
- Were invoices issued by the Defendant valid applications for payment?
On issue 1, the Court found the Contract was agreed by an exchange of WhatsApp messages and that the parties had agreed that the Defendant was free to submit an application for payment by way of invoice at any stage during each month cycle. The Court also stated that agreement as to the duration of the works, start date and payment terms were not essential terms which precluded a concluded contract.
On issue 2, the Court held that 3 of the 4 invoices were valid. One invoice was invalid because it was the second invoice issued that month. Practitioners and parties are likely to be particularly interested in the Court’s analysis of the contents of the invoices. In their factual context, including that it was a lump sum contract, the Court agreed that the first two invoices set out “the basis on which the sum is calculated” by listing the works which had been completed, even though there was no mathematical breakdown to the overall sum claimed or valuation of each item.”
