Don’t touch those defects
It is often a vexed question whether a contractor should be entitled to rectify defects in its works when an employer has lost confidence in its abilities. There is often a clash between the desire for contractors to seek to minimise their losses by rectifying their own defects and the desire of employers (in some circumstances) for the defaulting party not to darken their door again.
Restraining a replacement contractor from rectifying defects
The recent case of Flexidig Ltd vs A Coupland (Surfacing) Ltd concerned a novel question in this context: could the original subcontractor (Flexidig) obtain an injunction preventing a replacement subcontractor (Coupland) from repairing defects in Flexidig’s works?
The court acknowledged it was arguable M&M could have been acting in breach of contract by engaging a third party without giving Flexidig the opportunity to rectify its defects.
The main contractor, M&M, and Flexidig had entered into a subcontract for civil engineering works connected with the installation of fibre optic cable in Louth for the employer, Virgin Media Ltd, and Lincolnshire county council.
Under the subcontract, Flexidig was required to make good any defects during the progress of the works and the defects liability period. If Flexidig failed to do this, M&M could engage another party to do so, or complete the works itself, and recover the costs from Flexidig. M&M was also entitled to terminate the contract for breach, or for convenience on one week’s notice.
M&M and Flexidig fell out. Both obtained adjudication awards against the other. Flexidig was awarded £185,000 for works undertaken and M&M was awarded £462,000 as an on-account sum for defects. Enforcement proceedings were commenced for both sums but were subsequently adjourned to allow Flexidig an opportunity to return to site and correct the defects.
Flexidig returned to site but M&M was unhappy with the remedial works and stopped the work on two separate occasions. M&M then contracted with Coupland as a new subcontractor to complete the rectification works on a call-off basis.
Claims by the parties
Somewhat unusually, Flexidig then applied for an injunction against Coupland to stop it carrying out these rectification works. Surprisingly, it did not claim against M&M.
Flexidig argued M&M had engaged Coupland in breach of contract to remedy the defects, when Flexidig had the right to perform those works under its subcontract. Flexidig claimed that in continuing to comply with call-off instructions from M&M to undertake work while aware of this alleged breach, Coupland’s actions constituted the tort of procuring a breach of contract.
The court’s decision
The court rejected the application on the basis that:
(i) there was no inducement of a breach of contract by Coupland;
(ii) while it was possible M&M could have breached the contract by appointing Coupland to complete the remedial works, the court was unconvinced by this argument; and
(iii) injunctive relief was not an appropriate remedy in these circumstances. If it were granted, M&M could simply terminate its contract with Flexidig under the termination-at-will clause and then engage another subcontractor.
Procuring a breach of contract
A key part of the tort of procuring a breach of contract is an intention by the defendant to induce the third party to breach its contract with the claimant.
The court found that while Coupland may have facilitated a breach by accepting the works, this was not the same as procuring a breach. Facilitating and inducing did not mean the same thing. The defendant would only be liable if the claimant could demonstrate the requisite mental ingredient to a claim for inducing breach of contract – namely an intention by Coupland to induce a third party (M&M) to breach its contract
with Flexidig. All Coupland knew was that Flexidig alleged M&M was acting in breach of contract, to which M&M told it otherwise. The court rejected the suggestion that Coupland should have assessed the correctness of such competing arguments before accepting its engagement.
The court acknowledged it was arguable M&M could have been acting in breach of contract by engaging a third party without giving Flexidig the opportunity to rectify its defects. However, it was not persuaded that this was a breach of contract in this case, as Flexidig’s subcontract did not necessarily require M&M to allow it to return to remedy
defects in all circumstances. It did not expressly provide that M&M could not engage a third party to remedy defects should it so desire. However, the court did suggest that it was implicit in the subcontract that M&M should request Flexidig remedy defects if it wished to subsequently claim the costs of engaging another.
Requirements of an injunction
Anyone seeking injunctive relief needs to satisfy the American Cyanamid test, that:
(i) there is a serious issue to be tried,
(ii) damages would not be an adequate remedy, and
(iii) the balance of convenience favours granting an injunction. The court’s finding that there was no inducement meant there was no serious question to be tried. In any event, damages would have been an adequate remedy, especially as granting an injunction would not necessarily result in Flexidig resuming and completing the works. As such, the balance of convenience was against granting an injunction.
Engaging a replacement contractor to rectify?
While unusual, this case is an interesting illustration of the issues that may arise in the rectification of defects. The more interesting question is: in what circumstances could an employer, despite there being a provision in the contract entitling the defaulting party to
come back to rectify its own defective works, be entitled to deny that party that opportunity?
This may depend upon the nature and extent of the defects found or if that party had already gone back to rectify defects and the employer still remained unsatisfied with the quality of the remedial works.
When can you set off claims against different elements of a project
The Court’s decision raises important drafting considerations for construction contracts involving multiple elements of a project.
Drafting terms and conditions or negotiating a contract? Be wary of "unusual" and "exorbitant" exclusion clauses
When drafting a set of terms and conditions, companies must adhere to the requirements contained in the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
International Arbitration in India and Around the World
Rupa Lakha joined the panel discussing the latest developments in construction and dispute resolution.
Collateral Warranties – Are they also a ‘Construction Contract’?
What are collateral warranties and what do they mean for your construction contracts? Read more here.
Construct.Law - Summer 2021
Click here to read the summer edition of our construction & infrastructure publication - Construct.law
Powering Real Estate
Is it plausible to meet the governments ambitious plan to get new houses off the gas grid by 2025? Watch our webinar here
Andrew Keeley writes for Construction News on the Supreme Court's decision in Triple Point Technology, Inc v PTT Public Company Ltd
The Supreme Court recently delivered its highly anticipated judgement in Triple Point Technology, Inc v PTT Public Company Ltd.
Steven Carey quoted by Construction Law on the risk of an increase in disputes over the materials shortage in the construction sector
Shortages of materials will likely lead to an increase in disputes as projects suffer ensuing disruption.
Chris Hadnutt writes for Building on whether liquidated damages clauses survive termination of contract
Chris Hadnutt considers whether liquidated damages clauses survive termination of contract.
LIDW21: A view from London and India
Watch the discussion on the challenges of the possible rise in disputes in the construction and infrastructure sector in India.
Construction Post Pandemic: 'Great Expectations' or 'Bleak House'?
Watch the discussion on construction post pandemic for the UK and internationally.
Building Safety and the “Golden Thread”
What you should be doing now
Mock Conference with Counsel
An authentic insight into common challenges facing developer clients.
“Subject to Contract” does not amount to an agreement
What does the recent Aqua Leisure International Limited v Benchmark Leisure Limited mean and what practical tips can be taken?
Christopher Busaileh writes for Building on the issues of including liquidated damages clauses in subcontracts
There are a number of specific issues that need to be considered for a main contractor looking to include LADs clauses in subcontracts.
Disputes under more than one contract
Jurisdictional issues to remember if considering adjudication
James Worthington writes for Construction News on the way in which the courts will handle leaseholder claims relating to defective cladding
Defective cladding: how will the courts handle leaseholder claims?
Rupa Lakha quoted by Legal Week on the liberalisation of the Indian legal market
The proposed trade deal could be “the proper catalyst for liberalisation”.
Rachel Warren quoted by Construction Law on the increasing pressure on the HSE over Covid deaths
The Health & Safety Executive is likely to face increasing pressure to take enforcement action where employees have died from Covid.
Steven Carey writes for Building on whether a company can provide expert services in claims for and against the same party
A recent appeal case looked at whether a company can provide expert services in claims for and against the same party.