“Subject to Contract” does not amount to an agreement
My colleagues Anna Sowerby and Eveline Strecker recently commented on the case of Joanne Properties Limited v Moneything Capital Limited where the Court of Appeal overturned a decision of the lower court which had found that a binding agreement had been arrived at despite communications being labelled “subject to contract” during settlement negotiations: ‘Subject to contract’ – The effect of these words in settlement negotiations.
A recent case in the Technology and Construction Court has reinforced the message that labelling communications “subject to contract” will generally prevent an agreement coming into force.
Section 108(3) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 states that:
“…the decision of the adjudicator is binding until the dispute is finally determined by legal proceedings, by arbitration (if the contract provides for arbitration or the parties otherwise agree to arbitration) or by agreement” [emphasis added].
In Aqua Leisure International Limited v Benchmark Leisure Limited the court had to decide whether the conduct of the parties amounted to an agreement so that the adjudicator’s decision was no longer binding and therefore incapable of enforcement.
Aqua Leisure was successful in an adjudication in July 2017 in relation to an interim application for payment. Following that decision, the parties met to discuss and agree the final settlement of the account, including release of any retention which was subsequently due to Aqua Leisure.
On 31 August 2017, agreement was reached via a telephone conversation between the principals of the parties. This was recorded in an email exchange between the principals which was expressly stated to be without prejudice and subject to contract.
The agreed terms were for staged payments to be made by Benchmark, for Aqua Leisure to complete the “warranty works” and for a payment of £110,000 to be guaranteed by Benchmark’s parent company. Some of these stage payments were subsequently made by Benchmark, albeit not strictly within the deadlines stipulated in the parties’ agreement.
In the interim, Aqua Leisure circulated a settlement deed and asked Benchmark to execute it. The terms of the settlement deed did not reflect the entirety of the parties’ agreement of August 2017 and instead sought to increase the payment that the parent company was guaranteeing. Benchmark never signed the settlement deed and on 11 May 2018 confirmed that there would be no parent company guarantee.
The sums awarded under the adjudication were not paid in full and the payments due under the staged payment regime agreed by the parties in August 2017 were also not paid in full.
Aqua Leisure therefore applied to the court to enforce the adjudicator’s decision in April 2019.
The court’s decision
The adjudicator’s decision was enforced by the Technology & Construction Court. In doing so the judge noted that the parties had clearly agreed in August 2017 that there would be no binding contract until the terms were reduced to writing and signed off. This was clear by the words “subject to contract” in the email communications around that time, as well as Aqua Leisure’s subsequent chasing of Benchmark for execution of the agreement.
The court held that the question was whether (after the email exchange in August 2017), the parties had agreed to enter into a binding contract (a new contract) without the need for all terms to be reduced to writing. The court found that there nothing in the points advanced by the defendant that allowed a conclusion that a new contract was made.
The judge was not persuaded by the fact that stage payments had been made by Benchmark and that Aqua Leisure had carried out the warranty works. The judge pointed out that in the absence of a compromise, sums were still due under the original contract and under the terms of the binding adjudicator’s award. Payments made and work carried out was therefore not evidence of a new contract having come into existence but rather simply evidence that the parties were working together to settle debts and obligations under the original contract.
The Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act
This case also confirmed the previous position that an adjudicator cannot award legal costs pursuant to the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998. The court severed the aspects of the adjudicator’s decision awarding costs, finding that the adjudicator had no jurisdiction to make such an award.
Due care must always be taken by parties seeking to compromise matters arising out of an adjudicator’s decision. If communications are labelled as “subject to contract” and no formal agreement has been executed, it is likely that a court will find that the parties have not reached a binding agreement. Until such time as a binding settlement agreement has been reached, the parties would be well advised to treat the adjudicator’s decision as binding.
Care should also be taken to carefully record the terms of any oral agreement between the parties and to then ensure that any subsequent settlement agreement accurately reflects that agreement.
For more information please contact Karen Morean, or your usual Charles Russell Speechlys contact.
Marcus Stuttard will provide his unique insight and a "state of the nation" market update.
UK Construction Law Update: What Happened in 2021? What can we expect in 2022?
The panel will cover a number of key construction law topics to ensure you stay in the loop
Fraudulent misrepresentation and the awareness condition: will the Court of Appeal bring certainty?
Is the claimant proving that they relied on false representations?
Restrictive Covenants Declaration that a restrictive covenant is no longer enforceable
Emma Preece explores restrictive covenants.
Charles Russell Speechlys advises Topland Group on two key transactions
Topland Group is one of the largest multi-billion pound, privately owned investment groups.
A Little Help from My Friends? New Measures on Assistance in the Collection of UK Taxes in Guernsey and the Isle of Man
An important development for individual taxpayers, trust companies and other professional services providers.
Property Patter: What can the property world expect from Parliament and the courts in 2022
What’s ahead in the world of property law during 2022
Environmental Land Management: Whose carbon is it anyway?
Everything you need to know about Environmental Land Management Schemes.
Top 10 Tips for dealing with Easements
Everything you need to know about dealing with Easements.
The changing leasehold landscape: Government consultation on reforming the leasehold and commonhold systems in England and Wales
Lauren Fraser and Laura Bushaway explore the changes occurring in the leasehold landscape process.
Philanthropy Insights – A discussion with John Pepin and Rennie Hoare of Philanthropy Impact
Join us as we discuss the current landscape of philanthropy in the UK and current trends, priorities and concerns amongst philanthropists.
The green lease: back for good?
Emma Humphreys and Phil Webb look at the growing interest in green lease clauses.
Expert Shopping – Seeking to rely on a new expert
A practice known as expert shopping may see the court order the disclosure of the previous experts.
On the employment horizon – 2022
We set out some of the key changes we anticipate over 2022 in employment law, and how to best prepare for them.
Playing for time with lease expiry
Emma Humphreys explores time with lease expiry from the perspective of tenant and landlord.
Top 10 Tips: Terminating agricultural tenancies affecting development land
Everything you need to know about Terminating agricultural tenancies affecting development land.
The government’s Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill and revised Code of Practice
Emma and Laura explore the government's new Code of Practice for commercial property relationships.
Q&A: Timely guidance on service charges
Emma Preece and Brooke Lyne find that a recent Court of Appeal decision offers timely guidance on residential service charge matters.
What artists need to know about law
What should artists consider when entering contracts, whether with galleries, museums or other parties?
The digital marketplace - an art law briefing
Has the digital art market grown up in the past 18 months?