Cases - Tameside MBC v Barlow Securities Group Services Ltd

Record details

Name
Tameside MBC v Barlow Securities Group Services Ltd
Date
[2001]
Citation
EWCA Civ 1
Legislation

Limitation Act 1980

Keywords
Final certificates - contract not executed properly - determining the sum due - having conclusive effect as to certain matters of workmanship
Summary

This case arose from a contract between Tameside MBC and Barlow Securities whereby the latter agreed to construct a development of 106 houses for the former.

The contract was not very formally operated, the agreed JCT 1980 form was not executed under seal until 2 years into the project when some works were already practically complete. In addition, no final certificate was ever issued by the architect - the evidence instead pointing to a final meeting between chief quantity surveyors at which it was agreed that little extra money was owed, but little discussion was had in relation to the final certificate.

Seven years later, defects were discovered in the building on the basis of which Tameside brought a claim against Barlow Securities.

The Court of Appeal held that the final certificate had not been issued and Barlow Securities could not rely on any conclusive effect it might have had had it been issued at the appropriate time. In particular, the court stated that the final certificate under the JCT contract had 2 purposes:

  • determining the sum due; and
  • having conclusive effect as to certain matters of workmanship.

The fact that the parties had agreed the sum due did not mean that the final certificate should be taken to have been issued. If Barlow Securities wanted the protection offered by the final certificate, it could and should have applied for an order for one to be issued. The court also stated that, under the terms of the JCT 1980 contract, the architect was not in breach of any duty to issue a final certificate until such time as Barlow Securities had provided all the information it was contractually required to provide in order to enable the architect to assess the sum due under the contract.