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 UKconstruction and engineering issues. This spring edition includes: 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 Adjudication’s Expanding Empire?.....................................................................6 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(and Other Creative Defences)? Vision Construct Ltd v Gypcraft Drylining Contractors Ltd Facts of the Case The recent case ofVision ConstructLtd v Gypcraft Drylining ContractorsLtd [2025] EWHC 2707 (TCC)is yetanother case dealing with contractsthat have payment schedules that arelater extended out by one of the parties,how dates are missed and the lengths apaying party will go to in order to avoidmaking payment. 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 wereagreed to be between December 2020-January 2021, meaning that the schedule was broadly redundant by the date of thesubcontract. 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 ValuationDates and did not specifically mention interim payment applications: (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 howGypcraft could issue interim payment applications, and how VCL could in turn issue payment notices and pay less notices. 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,“the parties [should] adopt business common sense as to the arrangement for invoicing and payment”. •Argument one– The subcontract failed toidentify a relevant “interim valuation date” forthis payment cycle (numb