• news-banner

    Expert Insights

Can a contractor adjudicate to recover outstanding retention monies from the employer’s assignee?

This was the question which the Technology and Construction Court (Liverpool) grappled with in the recent case of Grove Construction (London) Limited v Bagshot Manor Limited [2025] EWHC 591 (TCC).

Background

Grove Construction, was contracted by Bagshot Manor Developments Limited, to refurbish Bagshot Manor into 79 residential dwellings.

Following the end of the rectification period on 11 February 2023, Grove applied for the release of the remainder of the retention monies held by Bagshot Manor Developments (£112,337.16) plus VAT.  

Before payment was made, Bagshot Manor Developments entered into administration, but through a deed of assignment dated 21 July 2023, assigned its rights under the construction contract to Bagshot Manor Limited.

The assignment included all rights of action arising under the contract, albeit notification of the assignment to Grove was not given until the following year.  The deed of assignment contained wording typically used in such documents:

“On the date of this Assignment, in consideration of the sum of £1 exclusive of VAT now paid by the Assignee to the Assignor... the assignor... assigns... whatever right title and interest (if any) the Assignor has in the Construction Documents together with all rights of action arising under them, including any rights that have already arisen, to the Assignee, to the extent in both cases such are assignable.”

Grove obtained an adjudicator’s decision that Bagshot Manor Limited was liable to pay the retention monies to the contractor and pursued Bagshot Manor Limited for the outstanding retention monies.  

Issues before the Court

Bagshot Manor Limited contested enforcement proceedings on the basis:

  • It was not liable to pay the retention monies under the contract;
  • The adjudicator lacked jurisdiction to hear the dispute as it was not a party to the contract;
  • The contract remained between Grove and Bagshot Manor Developments; and
  • The adjudicator's decision was contrary to established law on assignment, which does not transfer burdens, obligations, or liabilities without a novation.

Decision

The court emphatically rejected Grove’s interpretation of the deed of assignment as somehow transferring the burden of an employer’s interest in the building contract by the backdoor. It concluded:

  • The assignment in this case was a standard transfer of rights and benefits, consistent with established legal principles;
  • Bagshot Manor Limited was not a party to the building contract and therefore the matter could not be referred to adjudication.  The parties to the contract remained Grove and Bagshot Manor Developments.

The Court emphasised that an assignment does not make the assignee a party to the contract unless there is a novation.  

The adjudicator's decision was deemed erroneous, and Bagshot Manor Limited was entitled to a declaration recognising the adjudicator's lack of jurisdiction.

Further considerations

The outcome of this case emphasises the distinction between the legal concepts of assignment and novation.  For the burden of the contract to transfer from one party to another, a novation agreement between the contractor, the original employer and its successor will be required.  

It is also worth mentioning the recent landmark decision of BDW Trading Ltd v Ardmore Construction Ltd [2024] EWHC 3235 (TCC) in which the right to adjudicate claims was confirmed to extend to a claim for breach of the Defective Premises Act 1972 commenced by an assignee of the employer's interest under a building contract where the contractual limitation period had long since expired.

Employer’s assignees availing themselves of the right to adjudicate a defects claim should bear in mind that they may still find themselves taking subject to liabilities (such as repayment of retention monies) owed by the employer under the contract.  This is because the contractor may raise against the employer’s assignee a defence, set-off or counterclaim which it would have had, had it been pursued by the employer.

Our thinking

  • IBA Annual Conference 2025

    Simon Ridpath

    Events

  • Next Gen Rural Professionals Drinks Reception

    Events

  • Triple Play "Bid Fever": UK Tech's ability to scale and go global

    Mark Howard

    Quick Reads

  • The Future of AI and Copyright Regulation in the UK: The Data (Use and Access) Bill finally gets Lords approval in the UK

    Rebecca Steer

    Quick Reads

  • HM Land Registry's Digital Drive - Delays Persist but perhaps there is light at the end of the tunnel?

    Maisy-Jane Cook

    Quick Reads

  • Key aspects of the FCA’s PISCES Sourcebook

    Jodie Dennis

    Insights

  • Mike Barrington and Mary Perham write for Tax Adviser on what the proposed changes to business property relief mean for investors and entrepreneurs, and for their businesses

    Mike Barrington

    In the Press

  • Bloomberg quotes Catrin Harrison on the recent exodus of non-doms from the UK

    Catrin Harrison

    In the Press

  • Trusts and Matrimonial Disputes in England

    Tom Watts

    Insights

  • The Financial Times and Daily Mail quote Emma Humphreys on the impact of the UK Government's Spending Review on housebuilding targets

    Emma Humphreys

    In the Press

  • Alumni Drinks Reception

    Events

  • Consultation on Private International Law and Digital Assets Law Commission Proposes Landmark Reforms

    Racheal Muldoon

    Insights

  • Navigating International M&A Disputes: Insights and Strategies for 2025

    Stephen Burns

    Quick Reads

  • Bridging Differences: The Role of Mediation in Resolving Cross-Border Trust Disputes

    Tamasin Perkins

    Insights

  • Rachel Warren writes for Solicitors Journal on the new failure prevent fraud offence

    Rachel Warren

    In the Press

  • MoneyWeek quotes Mary Perham on whether business property relief can be claimed on a furnished holiday let

    Mary Perham

    In the Press

  • Anti-greenwashing in the UK, EU and the US: the outlook for 2025 and best practice guidance

    Caroline Greenwell

    Insights

  • Landmark rulings from the Italian Revenue Agency on income tax exemption on gains from Italian shares held in trust

    Nicola Saccardo

    Quick Reads

  • Sowing doubt: slashing green farm funding is a risk we can't afford

    Maddie Dunn

    Quick Reads

Back to top