Menu
The dangers of commencing work against a letter of intent: £300k fee, £40m liability

News / / The dangers of commencing work against a letter of intent: £300k fee, £40m liability

A recent case has illustrated the danger of commencing work on a project without a comprehensive contract in place (Arcadis Consulting (UK) Ltd (formerly called Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd) v AMEC (BSC) Ltd (formerly called CV Buchan Ltd) [2016] EWHC 2509 (TCC)). 

In 2001/2, Buchan (now AMEC) and Hyder (now Arcadis) had discussions for Hyder to provide concrete structure design services on a number of projects. It was envisaged that there would be a “Protocol” or framework agreement setting out the main terms, with individual project requirements being set out in schedules to the Protocol and in work instructions. The discussions referred to a cap on Hyder's liability "where liability is not covered by insurance" and documents proposed by Buchan contemplated a requirement for Hyder to have professional indemnity insurance to a value of £5m per project. Hyder argued that other documents envisaged a liability cap of just £610,515. The terms of the Protocol were never actually agreed, but after receiving a letter of intent from Buchan containing key commercial terms, Hyder commenced work designing concrete structures for a multi-storey car park.  The car park as built was defective and may now need to be demolished and rebuilt. 

 

The court did not consider whether Hyder’s work was in fact defective, rather it focused on the issue of whether Hyder’s liability was limited by the terms of any contract between the parties. 

 

The court held that there was a contract between Buchan and Hyder. Dismissing Buchan’s argument on this point, the judge emphasized that “[in] circumstances where works have been carried out, it will usually be implausible to argue that there was no contract”. The fact that there was a letter of intent and that none of the documents had been flagged ‘subject to contract’ also pointed clearly to the existence of a contract for the design work. 

 

However, although a series of documents exchanged between the parties around the time the letter of intent was issued showed that both parties anticipated a final contract which would limit Hyder’s liability, the judge found that Hyder had not accepted the terms of any of the various proposals made by Buchan, so could not rely on any of the limitation provisions in those proposals. The judge commented that “Whilst the court should always strive to find a concluded contract in circumstances where work has been performed …, the court is not entitled to rewrite history so as to incorporate into that contract express terms which were not the subject of clear and binding agreement.” 

 

The judge also made reference to the principle of contract construction that clear words are required to cut down the remedies which the law provides for breach of important contractual obligations.  No such clear words featured in the contract in question.  

 

As the simple contract between the parties was on the terms stated in Buchan’s letter of intent, which did not include any reference to limits on Hyder’s liability, that liability was unlimited. Hyder now faces a potential liability of around £40m for alleged defective design work (having been paid less than £300,000 for the work in 2002).

 

Given that both parties clearly anticipated that Hyder’s liability would be limited when the Protocol was agreed, the court acknowledged that this might be regarded as a harsh result for Hyder, but criticised Hyder’s “dilatory and often uncooperative approach” to the negotiation of the Protocol. The judgment emphasised that “it is usually better for a party to reach a full agreement (which in this case would almost certainly have included some sort of cap on their liability) through a process of negotiation and give-and-take, rather than to delay and then fail to reach any detailed agreement at all.” 

Related sectors:

Related news & insights

News / UAE Ministerial Directive Gives the Green Light towards Allowing Enforcement of English Court Judgments onshore the UAE

21-09-2022 / Energy & Infrastructure

On 13 September 2022, the UAE Ministry of Justice (MOJ) issued a landmark directive to the President of the Dubai Courts, referring to a recent English Court judgment in Lenkor Energy Trading DMCC v Puri (2020) EWHC 75 (QB) which enforced a UAE Court judgment, and urging the Dubai Courts to take requisite steps to follow the principle of reciprocity when it comes to enforcing English Court judgments in the UAE.

UAE Ministerial Directive Gives the Green Light towards Allowing Enforcement of English Court Judgments onshore the UAE

News / Climate change litigation update: Derivative claim dismissed

06-07-2022 / Energy & Infrastructure

McGaughey & Anor v Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 1233 (Ch) On 24 May 2022, the High Court refused a claim brought against the directors of the Universities Superannuation Scheme (the “USS”), the largest private pension scheme in the UK, for inaction around climate change commitments.

Climate change litigation update: Derivative claim dismissed

News / Refund guarantees – avoiding drafting pitfalls

12-05-2022 / Energy & Infrastructure

Refund guarantees are often described as the cornerstones to shipbuilding projects and the buyer’s main security. Although they do not strictly form part of the shipbuilding contract, a shipbuilding project is unlikely to go ahead at all without one. It is therefore important to understand the different types of guarantee instruments, and the impact each has in practice on the guarantor’s obligations to pay and the buyer’s entitlement to recovery. A well-drafted guarantee provides certainty to the parties and strikes a balance between their respective entitlements and obligations.

Refund guarantees – avoiding drafting pitfalls

News / You will be estopped if you cross the line

04-04-2022 / Energy & Infrastructure

Estoppel is a useful tool in litigation, which is usually used to bind one party to a statement or a promise that it has previously expressed causing another to accept or adopt it for the purpose of their legal relations. The Court’s recent ruling in Geoquip Marine Operations AG v (1) Tower Resources Cameroon SA (2) Tower Resources PLC addresses estoppel by convention and recognises the requirement for the common assumption created between the parties to be clear and unequivocal. In this article, we focus on the specifics of the Court decision.

You will be estopped if you cross the line

News / Court of Appeal overturns second Unaoil bribery conviction

29-03-2022 / Energy & Infrastructure

On 24 March 2022, the Court of Appeal overturned the conviction of a second man, Paul Bond, prosecuted by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) in relation to alleged wrongdoing by Unaoil. 

Court of Appeal overturns second Unaoil bribery conviction

News / The Court grapples with impact of Covid-19 on European rugby

08-03-2022 / Energy & Infrastructure

As we approach the second anniversary of Covid-19 being declared a pandemic by the World Health Organisation on 11 March 2020, a number of judgments are coming out of the English Courts which are providing useful guidance on how the English Courts are treating claims concerning Covid-19, especially in a force majeure context.

The Court grapples with impact of Covid-19 on European rugby