A contractor firm has launched a legal attack in regards to a £I million bill.

International outfit ISG Construction Ltd was employed by Seevic College under the JCT Design and Build Contract 2011. The contract provided for payment by instalments to the contractor at given intervals following an interim application being received.

Although ISG made an interim application, a dispute arose about the value of the works carried out under the contract.

A declaration was sought on the contractual value of the works carried out up to the date of the interim application.

In court it was held that ISG was entitled to £1,097,696.29 which was the sum they had claimed in the interim application, plus interest due to Seevic neither serving a payment notice or a pay less notice in accordance with the contract.

Seevic’s claim was served four days before the decision on ISG’s claim. The adjudicator in Seevic’s  claim accepted ISG’s valuation of its measured works but did not accept the value ISG claimed for loss and expense. It was claimed that the true expense value of the loss and expense claim was just  over £300,000 and so directed that ISG should repay Seevic the difference of £768,525.36 on the assumption that the initial payment had already been made.

ISG then counterclaimed, stating that the adjudicator in Seevic’s claim had no jurisdiction to decide the matters and that the values of the works had already been decided in relation to the absence of the notice from Seevic.

Seevic accepted that, subject to the decision regarding its own claim, it had no defence to the application in respect to ISG’s claim.

Consequently, the judge determined that ISG’s application would be allowed.

The case decided that between contractor and employer, in the absence of any notices, the amount stated in the contractor’s application was the value of the works executed and therefore the amount Seevic had to pay.

Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart said in his conclusions that “If the costs or the basis on which they should be assessed cannot be agreed, I will decide this and assess them on paper. To this end, Seevic may make brief submissions on ISG’s costs, limited to two pages of A4.”