When is a warranty more than a warranty?
Any contractor or professional consultant who has provided a collateral warranty on a construction project, or indeed any real-estate owner who has the benefit of a collateral warranty, will be interested to learn of the recent case of Parkwood Leisure Ltd v Laing O’Rourke Wales and West Ltd (2013 EWHC 2665 (TCC)). In this case, Mr Justice Akenhead held that the collateral warranty given by a main contractor, Laing O’Rourke, to a tenant, Parkwood, was a construction contract and so the regime set out in the Housing Grants, Construction & Regeneration Act 1996 applied to include the right for the beneficiary to commence adjudication proceedings against the warrantor.
Parkwood was a sub-tenant of the Cardiff international pool, a swimming and sports centre. Before Parkwood’s sub-lease was granted, the head leaseholder, Orion Land and Leisure (Cardiff), engaged Laing O’Rourke to finish the design and carry out and complete its construction. Prior to the completion of the works and the commencement of Parkwood’s sub-lease, Laing O’Rourke executed a collateral warranty for the benefit of Parkwood stating, among other things, that it ‘has carried out and shall carry out and complete the works in accordance with the contract’. Parkwood then took possession of the centre and opened it to the public.
Over the next 30 months, a number of alleged construction and commissioning defects were discovered, which were resolved in a March 2012 settlement agreement. In February 2013, Parkwood wrote to Laing O’Rourke complaining that the air-handling units installed at the centre were defective and/or not fit for purpose and subsequently applied to the court for a declaration that the dispute was not covered in the March 2012 settlement agreement and that the collateral warranty was a construction contract for the purposes of the Housing Grants, Construction & Regeneration Act…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Collyer Bristow briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
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 Collyer Bristow
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Collyer Bristow
The most significant IP/competition law crossover case since our last edition of IP Matters is the EU Court of Justice decision in Huawei v ZTE.
A class action against 12 major banks for antitrust activity in the credit default swaps market presents an opportunity to review where things have got to in the European Commission’s investigation of anticompetitive conduct.