Cleveland Bridge (UK) Ltd v Whessoe-Volker Stevin Joint Venture
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 May 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] EWHC 1076 (TCC) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HT-10-106 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Technology and Construction Court) |
| Date | 13 May 2010 |
[2010] EWHC 1076 (TCC)
Before: The Hon. Mr.Justice Ramsey
Case No: HT-10-106
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
Adrian Williamson QC and Lucy Garrett (instructed by Walker Morris, Leeds) for the Claimant
Nicholas Baatz QC (instructed by CE Law, Birkenhead) for the Defendant
The Hon. Mr. Justice Ramsey:
Introduction
This is an application by Cleveland Bridge UK Limited (“Cleveland Bridge”) for the enforcement of an adjudicator's decision dated 17 February 2010 (“the Decision”) against Whessoe-Volker Stevin Joint Venture (“the Joint Venture”). The application is resisted on the basis that the agreement between Cleveland Bridge and the Joint Venture was not a construction contract because certain operations fell within the exception in s.105(2)(c) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (“the Act”).
The Joint Venture say, in the alternative, that to the extent that the works under the subcontract fell partly within construction operations under section 105(1) and partly under the exceptions in section 105(2) the adjudicator did not have jurisdiction in relation to the elements of the work that did not come within the definition of construction operations and her Decision cannot be enforced.
This application therefore raises questions of the true interpretation of section 105 of the Act and also, on the alternative case, of the approach of the court on an application for summary judgment where an adjudicator has jurisdiction as to part but not the whole of the matters referred to him for his decision.
Background
By an agreement dated 6 February 2006 (“the Subcontract”) the Joint Venture as the Company engaged Cleveland Bridge as the Contractor to carry out works at the Dragon Liquefied Natural Gas (“LNG”) terminal at Milford Haven. At this terminal LNG is off-loaded from bulk LNG carriers which arrive by sea and is pumped to storage tanks, as well as being stored in the pipes themselves. It then passes to equipment that re-heats the LNG to ambient temperature and so converts it to gas. The gas is then pumped into the national gas transmission pipeline.
The Subcontract consists of a Form of Agreement, Contract Data Part 1 which contains 32 clauses and Contract Data Part 2 which incorporates exhibits A to H.
Under Clause 3.1 of the Contract Data Part 1 it was provided:
(a) “The CONTRACTOR shall provide all labour, materials, contractors equipment, temporary works and everything whether of a permanent or temporary nature required for carrying out the SERVICES, except as otherwise stated within Exhibit A.”
By Clause 1.4 “SERVICES” were defined to mean the works described in Exhibit A.
Clause 4.3 provided: “For the performance of the SERVICES, the COMPANY shall pay the CONTRACTOR in accordance with Exhibit C hereto.”
Clause 5.1 dealt with the obligation of Cleveland Bridge to invoice the joint venture and for the Joint Venture to make payment within 30 days of receipt of invoice and supporting documentation.
Exhibit C provided that “The Rates and Prices for the SERVICES are set out the attached Bills of Quantities.” It then stated:
(a) “The CONTRACT Price has been calculated using the Scope of Works set out in Exhibit A (Subject to the specification for Steelwork and Painting). Any variation to the Scope of Works shall be valued by calculating the increase/decrease to tonnages of Steelwork and square metres of Painting contained in the Scope of Works and adjusting the Contract Price following measurement of the variation and evaluation at the Bill of Quantities rates.”
The Bills of Quantities consisted of Bills No 1 to 8. Bill No 1 contained general preliminaries, Bills No 2 to 6 dealt with piperacks and pipebridges; Bill No 7 dealt with the LER Building/Substation 16 and Bill No 8 dealt with the Compressor House. Each of Bills 2 to 8 were priced substantially on the basis of tonnes of structural steel work and square metres of painting, with some extra items.
The Services were defined in Exhibit A which contained a Scope of Work Document together with drawings and specifications. At paragraph 1.2 of the Scope of Work Document the work was described as being separated into these areas:
( 1) East West Pipebridge
(2) North South Pipebridge
(3) Flare Pipebridge
(4) LER (Local Equipment Room) Substation 16 Building Steelwork and Cladding
(5) Process Area Pipebridge
(6) Process Area Compressor House
At paragraph 3.0 of the Scope of Works Document the Structural Works were defined as:
(1) Preliminaries (such as Structural overheads, machinery, supervision, planning, materials)
(2) The preparation of fabrication drawings, including connection design.
(3) The purchase of structural steelwork, including connection plates and all consumables
(4) The transfer to the painting shop, including painting with a 3 coat paint system as detailed in specification…
(5) The delivery of the fabricated steelwork to site and offloaded in an agreed location at the site premises.
(6) Erection of Fabricated steelwork in an agreed manner onto prepared foundations including lining and levelling prior to grouting (by others).
The Scope of the Works is also described in the Witness Statement of Jaap Blokland dated 13 April 2010 and can be seen from the photographs in his Exhibit JB1.
There were considerable variations to the work to be carried out under the Subcontract and in March 2009 the Joint Venture agreed Cleveland Bridge's Final Account for the work in the sum of £4,687,500 of which £317,500 plus VAT remained due to Cleveland Bridge. Cleveland Bridge invoiced the Joint Venture for the total VAT inclusive sum of £365,125 by an invoice dated 13 March 2009. That sum was not paid and the Joint Venture contended that, in particular, because of a settlement agreement which had been entered into by the parties to the Joint Venture, no further sum was due.
By an Adjudication Notice dated 11 January 2010 Cleveland Bridge commenced an adjudication against the Joint Venture. An adjudicator (“the Adjudicator”) was appointed by the Chairman of TeSCA. The Joint Venture challenged the jurisdiction of the Adjudicator on the basis that the Subcontract was not a construction contract and thereafter participated expressly without prejudice to its primary contention that the Adjudicator did not have jurisdiction.
In her Adjudication Decision dated 17 February 2010, the Adjudicator held that the Joint Venture's defences to Cleveland Bridge's claim failed and that the Joint Venture should pay Cleveland Bridge £365,125, being £317,500 plus VAT. In addition she made an order for the Joint Venture to pay interest and the Adjudicator's fees.
By a letter incorrectly dated 3 February 2010 but sent on 19 February 2010 Walker Morris acting on behalf of Cleveland Bridge requested payment in the total sum of £403,514.49. That sum was not paid and on 29 March 2010 Cleveland Bridge commenced these proceedings in which they claimed the sum of £403,344.43 or such sum as the Court thinks fit and interest in the sum of £3,146.11 and continuing at a daily rate.
In the Application Notice they sought an order for Summary Judgment under Part 24: “to be given on the whole of the claim in favour of the Claimant”. The Application was supported by a Witness Statement of Julian Harbage dated 26 March 2010 which exhibited a number of documents including witness statements submitted in the Adjudication. In particular it exhibited the Witness Statement of Paul Walmsley dated 18 January 2010 to which he exhibited at PW2 the build up of the work valued in the Final Account. He stated that this showed that £1,797,124 of the final account figure of £4,687,500 was in respect of the following works, which he described as “Painting and Building Works”:
“All works in respect of the BOG Compressor House
All works in respect of the LER and Substation Building
All painting works; and
All making good of any damaged paintworks.”
Mr Walmsley then analysed the sums remaining to be paid in the final invoice and concluded at paragraph 2.6 that £100,747.20 of the £317,500 awarded by the Adjudicator in her Decision and which was still outstanding under the final invoice, related to Painting and Building Works as described above. That sum therefore excluded the value of the element of supply and erection of the steelwork for the piperacks and pipebridges.
In response the Joint Venture filed a First Witness Statement of David Jackson dated 13 April 2010 and a Witness Statement of Jaap Blokland also dated 13 April 2010. In reply Cleveland Bridge served a further Witness Statement of Paul Walmsley dated 16 April 2010.
The further Witness Statement of Paul Walmsley contained a 130 page exhibit which further analysed the balance of £317,500 due under the Adjudicator's Decision in respect of the final invoice. In that exhibit he sought to extract the figure for the work relating only to the element of work erecting the steelwork to the pipebridges and piperacks and concluded that within that figure the cost of erection was £115,398.18. This meant that the remaining amount of £202,101.82 did not relate to the erecting of the pipebridges and the piperacks.
At the hearing of the application the Joint Venture sought to put in further evidence in the form of a Second Witness Statement from David Jackson dated 21 April 2010. He dealt with some exchanges of correspondence between the parties, explained that certain elements of the Compressor House and LER Building comprised of steelwork to support, respectively,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Severfield (UK) Ltd v Duro Felguera UK Ltd
...that other steelwork would come within construction operations to which the Act applied. In the second case, Cleveland Bridge (UK) Limited v Whessoe-Volker Stevin Joint Venture [2010] EWHC 1076 (TCC); [2010] BLR 415, he ruled that it was only the actual 'erection' of steel work which suppo......
-
Equitix Esi CHP (Wrexham) Ltd v Bester Generacion UK Ltd
...is a contract for construction operations within s.105(1) or excluded operations under s.101(2).” 22 In Cleveland Bridge (UK) Limited v Whessoe-Volker Stevin Joint Venture [2010] EWHC 1076 (TCC), Ramsey J restated the principle that, because the operations described in s.105(2) can generall......
-
Dickie & Moore Limited Against Ronald James Mcleish, Diane Mcleish And Catriona Watt
...v Laing O’Rourke Scotland Limited 2009 SLT 8 454, Cleveland Bridge (UK) Limited v Whessoe-Volker Stevin Joint Venture [2010] BLR 415, [2010] EWHC 1076 (TCC), Carillion Utility Services Ltd v SP Power Systems Ltd, supra, or Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd v Shetland Islands Council [2012]......
-
Gary Paice and Another v Matthew J Harding (trading as MJ Harding Contractors)
...Ltd [2008] EWHC 2218 per Akenhead J at paragraphs 65 and 78. The defendant relies on the decision in Cleveland Bridge v Whessoe-Volker [2010] EWHC 1076 to submit that the design fees issue cannot be severed but Cleveland can be distinguished on its facts. In that case, the adjudicator did n......
-
Case Law Update Issue 5 (2010)
...Comments of Lord Hoffmann in Chartbrook v Persimmon were approved. Marc Rowlands Abdul Jinadu Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd v Volker Stevin JV [2010] CILL 2876 TCC In a dispute over the final account of a sub-contract for pipework and steel on the Drayon LNG terminal at Milford Haven, the court h......
-
All or Nothing? The severability of Adjudicators' Decisions
...the parties in this case got themselves into a tangle. Reference: Cleveland Bridge (UK) Limited v Whessoe-Volker Stevin Joint Venture [2010] EWHC 1076 (TCC) This article was written for Law-Now, CMS Cameron McKenna's free online information service. To register for Law-Now, please go to Law......
-
Adjudication and Projects Involving the Assembly and Installation of Power Plants
...v Whessoe-Volker Stevin Joint Venture (a partnership comprising Whessoe Oil & Gas Ltd and Volker Stevin Construction Europe BV) - [2010] EWHC 1076, The Whessoe-Volker, as a joint venture, engaged Cleveland Bridge to carry out works at a Liquefied Natural Gas terminal at Milford Haven. T......
-
Payment Provisions In Hybrid Contracts And The Effect Of The Construction Act
...operations. Previous case law relating to hybrid contracts Cleveland Bridge (UK) Ltd v Whessoe-Volker Stevin Joint Venture [2010] EWHC 1076 (TCC). In that case, the court found that, absent an agreement to the contrary, the provisions of the Act, and in particular, the statutory adjudicatio......