建筑与工程事务（英国）-2026年春季

Welcome to the spring edition of Construction and EngineeringMatters, where we provide you with bite-sized updates on UK Is Less Really More – Can a late Payment Notice Be a Pay Less Notice(and Other Creative Defences)?Vision Construct Ltd v GypcraftDrylining Contractors Ltd.....................................................................................1 High Court Provides Guidance on When a Party in an UnincorporatedJoint Venture Can Adjudicate..............................................................................4 Non‑party Costs Orders and Construction Litigation Funding:Lessons fromThomas Barnes & Sons PLC (in administration) vBlackburn with Darwen Borough Council..........................................................8 The Lesser of Two Evils:Finality on Termination Provisions –Providence Building Services Limited (Respondent) v. HexagonHousing Association Limited (Appellant).........................................................12 Expert Corner: The Dark Arts of Delay Analysis: Insights froman Industry Expert..............................................................................................15 Please feel free to share with your contacts – we welcome feedback andsuggestions for other topics that you would like to see covered in future editions. Is Less Really More – Can a late Payment Notice Be a Pay Less Notice Vision Construct Ltd v Gypcraft Drylining Contractors Ltd Facts of the Case The recent case ofVision ConstructLtd v Gypcraft Drylining Contractors Vision Construct Ltd (VCL) and Gypcraft Drylining Contractors Ltd (Gypcraft) entered into a subcontract dated 12 November2020. This was on the 2016 standard form joint contracts tribunal design and build sub-contract conditions (JCT DBSub/C),and it also incorporated a bespoke schedule that covered the interim payment dates and was designed to give effect toclause 4 of the JCT. However, the schedule covered the period April 2020-February 2021, while Gypcraft’s works were Ltd [2025] EWHC 2707 (TCC)is yetanother case dealing with contractsthat have payment schedules that are VCL therefore issued Gypcraft with updated schedules of further dates, provided as works progressed. These were insimilar forms and used language that did not entirely align with the usual JCT language, which refers to Interim Valuation (i)Sub-contractor submission valuation date (ii)Due date (sic) (iii)Accounts to issue payment notice by (iv)Payless notice to be issued by (v)Final date for payment The schedules did however include a footnote four that “all applications for payments and invoices are to be issued to[email address] by end of business on the valuation date above”. The JCT set out the usual specific requirements as to how Gypcraft issued an interim application for payment #23 (IA23) in the sum of £342,385.52, and VCL responded after thepayment notice deadline with a document entitled “Payment Notice” to say that they instead considered the sum due tobe £125,437.77, which was what VCL then paid. They did not serve a separate pay less notice. The parties went to adjudication over the payment, where the adjudicator found in favour of Gypcraft on the basis that: •Gypcraft had served a valid IA23•VCL had failed to serve either a valid payment notice or a pay less notice as required•IA23 was payable in the amount applied for, in accordance with s.110B(4) of the Housing Grants, Regeneration andConstruction Act 1996 (the Construction Act 1996) Having regard to the Claim as set out in the left-hand column, the court dealt with the various arguments as follows. The Claim Argument One – The Interim Valuation Dates Argument VCL issued a Part 8 claim in the TCC, andsubmitted the following (as it turned out, ratherhopeful if not ingenious) cascading arguments: The court initially observed that this was a very technical argument that would have had the practical effect ofpreventing the payment regime working as both the Construction Act 1996 and the subcontract itself had intended;this was not in line with Coulson LJ’s observation inBennett Construction Ltd. v CIMC MBS Ltd. [2019] BLR 587that, •Argument one– The subcontract failed toidentify a relevant “interim valuation date” forthis payment cycle (number 23), which meantthat the Scheme for Construction Contracts1998 applied to modify clause four of the JCTto fix the relevant valuation periods. That inturn meant that Gypcraft therefore had no VCL were attempting to rely on the fact that the schedule outlining the interim payment dates used the term “sub-contractor submission valuation date” rather than “interim valuation date”, but the court gave this short shrift and heldthat it would be “perverse and uncommercial” to hold that the payment regime could not work as intended simply on The court further held, on VCL’s argument that this would have in turn prevented Gypcraft from submitting an interimpayment application before the new date specified, that footnote four on its wor