Get your contract in place — Iliffe and Another v Feltham Construction Ltd and Another
By Chris O’Carroll
In Iliffe and Another v Feltham Construction Ltd and Another, the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) considered the principles relating to contract formation in the context of an application by the claimants for summary judgment in respect of their claim for damages to be assessed and for a substantial interim payment.
On 20 April 2012, a fire, which started in the roof, destroyed the claimants’ property during the course of its construction and when it was almost complete. The claimants claimed damages in excess of £3.5m from the defendant, Feltham Construction, as a result.
It was envisaged from the outset that the claimants’ house would be constructed in three phases, and a contract incorporating the standard form JCT Intermediate Building Contract with Contractor’s Design 2005 (Revision 2, 2009) conditions was eventually entered into for the Phase 1 works. No contracts were concluded for the Phase 2 or the Phase 3 works, although an ‘email of intent’ for part of the Phase 3 works was issued to Feltham by the claimants’ architect on 5 July 2011 in response to Feltham’s tender dated 28 June 2011 for part of the Phase 3 works…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co briefing.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co
The ‘client’, for the purposes of a service provision change under TUPE, may include the plural.
SPCs and combination products: basic patent on a sole ingredient cannot double as basic patent for combination
On 12 March 2015 the CJEU gave its ruling in Actavis v Boehringer Ingelheim, yet another reference from the UK courts regarding the interpretation of the SPC Regulation 469/2009.