Interim Payment Applications – Substance over form
It is important that parties to construction contracts comply with the contract’s payment provisions in order to be entitled to payment. In the recent case of RGB Plastering Limited v Tawe Drylining and Plastering Limited [2020] EWHC 3028, the Technology and Construction Court found that a sub-contractor’s interim payment application was invalid as it failed to strictly comply with the sub-contract’s payment provisions.
Clear and unambiguous
Applications for interim payment must be clear and unambiguous in their intention. In Henia Investments Inc v Beck Interiors Ltd [2015] EWHC 2433, the court stated: "…the document relied upon as an Interim Application must be in substance, form and intent an Interim Application… stating the sum due by the Contractor as due at the relevant date and it must be free from ambiguity.”
Interim payment process in the sub-contract
The subcontract between the parties set out a detailed mechanism for interim payments, which included the following requirements:
(a) Applications must be submitted on or before a certain date in the payment cycle;
(b) Applications were to be valued up to a certain date in the payment cycle; and
(c) Applications must be submitted electronically to a particular email address.
The subcontract contained a payment schedule. For the April 2019 cycle, the sub-contractor (Tawe) was required to issue its application on or before 28 April and the valuation date was 3 May. The corresponding dates for the May 2019 cycle were 29 May and 2 June. The payment schedule also stated that any applications received after the 28th of the month would not be considered but would be administered with the following month’s payments.
The dispute
Tawe issued an interim payment application on 7 May, valuing works up to 30 April. The interim payment application was issued to a number of email addresses of employees at RGB, but not the one stipulated in the subcontract.
RGB argued that Tawe failed to comply in three crucial respects:
- The interim payment application was issued too late for the 28 April payment cycle and too early for the May payment date;
- It valued works up to the 30 April, contrary to both the 3 May and 2 June valuation dates in the payment schedule; and
- It was not emailed to the email address stipulated in the subcontract.
The decision
The judge held that the contractual mechanism had not been complied with and the interim payment application was invalid. It was not just late (which would simply delay payment by a month), but it did not value the works to the correct date and had been sent to the wrong email address. It was not clear to RGB what to do with the application for payment and when.
The judge rejected Tawe’s argument that the application was early for the May/June deadline of 29 May because the valuation date for the May/June cycle was 2 June and the application only valued works up to 30 April. An application with a 30 April date would make sense for a due date at the start of May and any reasonable recipient would think it was a late application for the April payment cycle. The application was “not clear or unambiguous in substance form or intent”.
The provision in the payment schedule stating that applications received after the 28th would be administered the following month did not help. It merely meant that an application for the same sums could be made the following month, not that it became an application for payment for the next month.
The fact that the application was made on RGB’s template and accompanied by supporting documentation setting out a breakdown of the works also made no difference. It is how the application is filled out that is important rather than the template used and supporting documents do not help answer questions of compliance.
Estoppel argument
Tawe sought to rely on an estoppel argument, arguing that RGB knew or ought reasonably to have known what to do and when. There had been instances where RGB made payments on interim payment applications which were made late or sent to the wrong address.
However, this was first raised in a witness statement that was filed only two days before the hearing, nearly four weeks late, and the judge did not give permission for this evidence to be relied upon. He concluded that it would be unfair to give permission for the witness statement to be relied upon without giving RGB a chance to file evidence in response, which would ultimately lead to further delay and expense.
Comments on the estoppel argument
However, the judge did make some points about this potential estoppel argument.
RGB submitted that the estoppel argument would fail for several reasons, including:
- RGB had made its own valuations in past applications, and it was not inequitable for RGB to insist on the strict requirements in relation to this application when Tawe would still be able to recover the true value of the works it had carried out.
- Clause 38 of the subcontract provided that nothing contained in any approval or consent should prejudice, modify, affect or otherwise relieve Tawe of any of its obligations under the subcontract and that no purported waiver or amendment to the subcontract provisions should be construed as an amendment to those terms and conditions.
The judge agreed that these were difficulties which the estoppel claim would face (though he stopped short of agreeing that it was bound to fail).
We cannot know if the estoppel argument would have made a difference, but it would have been interesting to see what the court would have made of it based on the facts in this case.
Going Forward
This case confirms the well-established position that interim applications for payment must be clear and unambiguous and, importantly, comply with any contractual requirements however precise.
As the judge said in this case, the interim payments regime under the Construction Act 1996 is intended to provide a speedy interim payment procedure to promote cash flow during the contract period, and a balancing procedure at the end. It is important that each party has the right to have a balancing payment made at the end so that the true value is paid.
This article was written by Isabella Eacott and Eveline Strecker. For more information, please contact Isabella on +44 (0)1483 252 512 or at isabella.eacott@crsblaw.com or Eveline on +44 (0)20 7438 2272 or at eveline.strecker@crsblaw.com.
Our thinking
Charity Training: Digital Transformation in the Charity Sector
We would be delighted if you could join us for the second session in our new series of bite-size webinars for charities.
Charity Training: Brand Protection
We would be delighted if you could join us for the first in our new series of bite-size webinars for charities.
Rose Carey
The UK’s New Skilled Worker & Intra-Company Visa Routes: a closer look
Taking a closer look at the UK’s new visas to assist UK businesses.
Carolyn Davies
Practicalities in Cladding Claims
Insight into Issues with Cladding Claims
Mark Rowden
EWS1 Forms - the latest episode
RICS have now published their highly anticipated guidance on when EWS1 forms will be required.
Laura Bushaway
Q&A: Am I insured for COVID-19?
Laura Bushaway writes for Estates Gazette on a recent claim under the “disease clause” of business interruption policy.
Simon Ridpath
The Purpose Podcast: Corporate purpose
Simon Ridpath discusses corporate purpose and the rise of environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues in “The Purpose Podcast”
Paul Henty
Client alert: Construction under competition law spotlight
We outline the three investigations which have either recently concluded or are ongoing together with what this means for businesses.
Emma Humphreys
Looking beyond the benefitted land: confirmation that an objector’s wider property may be considered in applications to discharge/modify restrictive covenants
Read our recent case study on applicants who were prevented from developing a new house due to a restrictive covenant covering their land.
Lauren Fraser
Further extension of coronavirus restrictions affecting residential properties: Where are we now?
The extension will be implemented from and including 31 March 2021 by the Coronavirus Act 2020.
Thomas Moran
Knight Frank Wealth Report: The Global Perspective on Prime Property & Investment
Knight Frank partners joined Charles Russell Speechlys for a virtual panel-led discussion on the Knight Frank Wealth Report
Daniel Moore
Case Study: One Blackfriars Limited
An informative and positive judgment for administrators selling high-value property in distressed and complex scenarios.
James Worthington
Keeping Up With Construction: Handover at Practical Completion - Practical Pointers
Practical tips for the handover of a successful project.
Paul Arathoon
Charles Russell Speechlys advises on Trident Royalties’ US$28m Placing
Trident Royalties plc is a growth-focused mining royalty and streaming company.
Jessica Williams
Temporary restrictions on winding-up petitions extended until 30 June 2021
As the restrictions are extended, read what it means for you here.
Steven Carey
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.
Adrian Mayer
InvestAfrica: Checking in or Checking out? Financing Africa’s Hotels in 2021
The discussion examined the strategies investors and financial institutions can implement to mitigate the effects of the pandemic.
Paul Arathoon
Charles Russell Speechlys advises Avation plc on £7.5m secondary placing
Headquartered in Singapore, Avation plc manages a fleet of aircraft which it leases to airlines across the world.
To Promote or not to Promote, that is the Option: Top 10 Tips with Promotion Agreements
Providing you with the top ten tips with promotion agreements - what should you know?
Sara Wilson
Sleep-in workers not entitled to NMW for entire shift
A unanimous ruling by The Supreme Court in the Royal Mencap v Tomlinson-Blake and another case.