Despite its name, ART Consultancy carries out construction work as well as structural designs. In 2002, Navera wanted work doing at 101 Kilburn High Road, London.

On August 14, 2002 Navera sent a tender enquiry based on a schedule of works prepared by Navera’s architect, Michael George Associates. The enquiry included a requirement that the successful contractor would have to work under the JCT Minor Works building contract. Shortly after ART had started on site on July 22, 2003, Navera sent a copy of the JCT Minor Works agreement with Mr George having completed the relevant blanks.

ART carried out the works in accordance with the contract. However, before the tender enquires had been completed ART had prepared structural designs for Navera. During construction ART’s payment claims for the design work were not met, so it went to adjudication.

On February 22, 2007 the adjudicator decided Navera should pay ART £100,369. Although George confirmed that ART’s structural design work was not part of the construction contract, Navera claimed that the design and construction was all part of the same contract. It argued that as the design contract was not in writing and did not comply with the 1996 Construction Act, the adjudication was invalid following the case of RJT Consulting Engineers in 2002.

The judge disagreed, holding there was nothing in the RJT case which said there must be only one all-embracing contract. If the parties wished to make a series of contracts, some within the 1996 Construction Act and others outside, it was up to them. Moreover the JCT Minor Works was not a design contract, so ART succeeded in winning payment for its designs.

Moral: Don’t rely on one contract.

Case: ART Consultancy Ltd v Navera Trading Ltd (TCC May 31 2007)

Source

Construction Manager