Citation: PNLR 12 (TCC) and [2011] EWHC 3449 (TCC)
Nature of case: Leander initiated Part 8 proceedings challenging the validity of two withholding notices. The parties’ sub-contract contained a number of express and implied terms wherebyMulalleyexercised considerable control over Leander’s performance of the works. The court held that the existence of such terms militated against any need for further implying terms to allow Mulalley to exercise even greater control. The withholding notices were based on implied terms which Mulalley could notdemonstrate as necessary to give the contract business efficacy and were only issued as a means of claiming unliquidated damages for interim delay. To imply such a term would be contrary to the general run of authorities and to the proper construction of the sub-contract.
