Citation: [2019] EWHC 2360 (TCC)
Universal sought to enforce an adjudicator’s decision in relation to the supply and delivery of concrete. The Defendant sought to resist the enforcement on two bases: first that the Claimant’s terms and conditions had not been incorporated, and second that since the contract was for the supply and delivery of concrete, that it fell within s105(2)(d)(ii) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 so that the Act did not apply.
On the first issue, finding for the Claimant, Jefford J concluded that it was clear that the contract was on the terms of the subcontract order, incorporating the claimant’s terms and conditions. This was an offer to purchase concrete which had been accepted by the defendant’s conduct in delivering the concrete to the site. A delivery note from the Defendant was too late to be a counter-offer.
On the second issue, the claimant argued that the specific nature of the concrete in this contract, was that it set and cured where it was poured as part of the delivery. The Claimant argued this meant that the contract amounted to one that provided for installation as well as delivery of the concrete, such that the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 applied and the decision was enforceable. Jefford J rejected that argument, held that the supply and delivery of contract in this case did not amount to one of installation and therefore found that the adjudicator had erred in deciding that the delivery of concrete did not fall within s105(2)(d)(ii) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. The adjudicator therefore had no jurisdiction and the claimant was not entitled to summary judgment to enforce his decision.
Sarah acted for the Claimant.
