Hybrid contracts - Should payment notices distinguish between sums due for construction operations and non-construction operations?
Hybrid contracts are one of the more unusual creatures arising from the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. They are contracts that include both “construction operations” (as defined in the Act) and works which are excluded from the operation of the Act. They have given rise to a number of cases considering how the statutory right to adjudicate applies to such contracts. Lord Justice Coulson referred to this as a “self-inflicted problem” which the courts must do their best to resolve until the Act is amended to do away with these “unnecessary distinctions”.
In the recent decision of C Spencer Limited v M W High Tech Projects UK Limited, the Court of Appeal considered hybrid contracts again in the context of the payment provisions in the Act.
MW High Tech Projects UK Limited was the main contractor appointed for the design and construction of a power plant capable of processing refuse-derived fuel produced by waste. C Spencer Limited was engaged as MW’s sub-contractor to design and build the civil, structural and architectural works for the facility. The sub-contract price was over £35 million.
The sub-contract was substantially comprised of works falling within the definition of “construction operations” for the purposes of the Act. However, the works also included the assembly of plant and erection of steel to provide support or access to plant and machinery. Such works are expressly excluded from the definition of “construction operations” in the Act.
The sub-contract provided for milestone payments and included an Act compliant payment mechanism that did not distinguish between “construction operations” and “non-construction operations”.
A dispute arose in relation to a payment application submitted by C Spencer. This payment application made a distinction between construction and non-construction operations. It allocated approximately £2.6 million plus VAT to construction operations and provided a breakdown of that figure. However, MW issued a payment notice which stated that C Spencer actually owed MW approximately £6.8 million excluding VAT. MW’s payment notice (in line with previous payment notices) did not distinguish between construction and non-construction operations.
C Spencer argued that this was not a valid payment notice and therefore the sum they had applied for was due by default. The key point to this argument was that the payment notice was not valid because it did not distinguish between construction and non-construction operations. C Spencer commenced Part 8 proceedings seeking payment of approximately £2.6 million on this basis.
The Court’s decision
The issue for the Court was therefore whether a payment notice under a hybrid contract had to distinguish between “construction operations” and non-construction operations in order to be valid?
The Court of Appeal agreed with the TCC that this was not the case and so dismissed C Spencer’s claim on the basis that:
- There was nothing in the sub-contract which required the parties to differentiate between construction and non-construction operations in their payment or payless notices.
- Analysis must start with the contract terms in order to see if they comply with the Act. The Act envisages that the parties will contract on terms agreed between them. If those terms comply with the Act, the Act is no longer of relevance to the parties. The Act envisaged hybrid contracts but did not go on to say that hybrid contracts should require separate or distinct notification of sums due for construction operations. It could have done so. The contract therefore complied with the Act.
- Parties are free to agree a payment mechanism for their contract that sits alongside the statutory provisions. In other words, they can “contract in” to the Scheme for Construction Contracts (which operates under the Act), but they cannot “contract out” of the Act for construction operations. In practice, this is commonly adopted in sub-contracts which include both construction and non-construction operations in certain industries. Lord Justice Coulson went on to say “that approach is not only permissible, it is to be welcomed”. It provides certainty and transparency and avoids the complications that having two separate payment regimes would bring.
The Court of Appeal also found that the importance of the distinction between construction and non-construction operations under a hybrid contract only arises if there is a dispute over the sum due. Unless it is extended by agreement between the parties (which it had not been in this case), an adjudicator will only have jurisdiction to deal with disputes relating to construction operations under the construction contract.
What does this mean for hybrid contracts?
It is likely that parties will continue to use one payment mechanism for hybrid contracts. This means the payment provisions needs to be compliant with the Act, otherwise the Act will imply the relevant provisions from the Scheme for Construction Contracts to replace any non-compliant terms in the payment mechanism for the construction operations only. This would result in two payments mechanisms in the contract.
The Act does not require payment applications or notices to distinguish between construction and non-construction operations.
The Act will only imply a right to adjudicate into the contract in respect of the construction operations. A party will therefore only be able to bring an adjudication claim in respect of the non-construction operations if there is a contractual right to do so. If not, any adjudication that does not clearly confine itself to the construction operations could be subject to a jurisdictional challenge. In such circumstances, the claiming party will have to make sure that the application subject to the adjudication claim clearly differentiates the sums applied for in respect of construction operations. Otherwise, it will be difficult to establish that there is a dispute in relation to the sums claimed for those specific items of work and that the adjudication claim only relates to sums due in respect of construction operations.
IBA Annual Conference
The IBA heads to Miami for its 2022 Annual Conference bringing together thousands hundreds of lawyers from around the world.
David Berry provides comment for CITMA Review on sustainability in the legal sector
“Trying to cut corners or failing to take these efforts seriously would be a huge mistake.”
Charles Russell Speechlys acts for Maitland Medical Services Ltd on its acquisition of Soma Health Limited
We have advised Maitland Medical Services Ltd on its acquisition of Soma Health Limited.
Dominic Lawrance and Catrin Harrison write for Tax Journal on the statutory residence test
The statutory residence test: an exceptionally useful case on ‘exceptional circumstances’
Charles Russell Speechlys advises Zenzero on the acquisition of OnTech
Zenzero is one of the fastest growing service providers in the UK, supporting over 10,000 users across a variety of industries.
Mind your business: Safeguarding your business against loss of mental capacity
Practical considerations to safeguard your business against loss of mental capacity.
PART 36— A move towards greater flexibility?
Discussing the possibility of the Part 36 regime opening up with recent developments.
FT Wealth quotes Sarah Anticoni on forum shopping
"Being the first to file for divorce is not a foolproof way of securing an English hearing"
What can UK investors interested in Life Sciences learn from their more experienced, including US, counterparts?
The recent tie-up between Canary Wharf and Kadans demonstrates the enthusiasm to access the lucrative UK life sciences market.
The hurdles in establishing retrospective validation of post-petition dispositions
A discussion on the key takeaways from ICC Judge Barbers recent case ruling.
Helen Coward writes for Tax Journal on the main purpose test for SDLT group relief
Mainly ignored? The main purpose test for SDLT group relief
The Ayes have it - Collateral Warranties can be a ‘Construction Contract’
The Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in the case of Abbey Healthcare (Mill Hill) Limited v Simply Construct (UK) LLP
Charles Russell Speechlys advising Battery Ventures on the sale of SPT Labtech for £650 million.
Battery Ventures has raised over $9 billion to invest in software and services, enterprise infrastructure, and much more around the world.
Windrush Day 2022 – supporting access to justice
Charles Russell Speechlys is proud to continue supporting survivors of the Windrush scandal in their fight for justice.
The Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022: Landlords and developers beware serious sanctions for non-compliance
The Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022 received Royal Assent on 8 February 2022 and will come into force on 30 June 2022.
EG quotes Emma Preece on the Picturehouse and BNY Mellon rent arrears cases
“The case is being closely watched by landlords and tenants alike as the impact of the pandemic lives on in the commercial property sector”
Charles Russell Speechlys has advised long-standing client Stonegate on a series A investment into Peckwater Brands
Stonegate is one of the largest pub companies in the UK with a rich portfolio that covers over 4,500 sites.
Pro bono support for major office premises move for charity in Stoke-on-Trent
Emmaus entities provide safe homes, community support and meaningful work to formerly homeless people across the UK.
Financier Worldwide quotes Rachel Warren on the UK’s Economic Crime Act
Evaluating the UK’s Economic Crime Act
Julia Cox and Felicity Chapman write for International Adviser on the rise of pre-nups in the UK
Julia Cox and Felicity Chapman write for International Adviser on the rise of pre-nups