Practical completion considered

News / / Practical completion considered

BackgroundPickstock was employed by Plymouth (Notte Street) Limited (PNSL) to design and build two blocks of student accommodation PNSL entered into an Agreement for Lease (AFL) of the accommodation blocks with Mears, managers of student accommodation, who had agreed to take a long lease of the new accommodation following completion Pickstock was also a party to the AFL Costplan was employed as PNSL's agent in respect of the construction project The project encountered delays The AFL contained a long stop date of 18 September 2018 (as varied) after which PNSL or Mears could terminate the AFL if practical completion under the construction contract had not been achieved Assuming practical completion was achieved, then the lease was to be executed within five working days thereafterOver springsummer 2018, Mears served several defects notices on PNSL which, amongst other things, alleged that around 56 rooms had been constructed more than 3 smaller than was required by the AFL It did so on the basis that under clause 621 of the AFL, PNSL was prevented from making any variations to the works that materially affect the size (and a reduction of more than 3 of the size of any distinct area shown upon the Building Documents shall be deemed material), layout or appearance of the Property On 16 August 2018, Costplan indicated that it intended to conduct a pre-completion inspection, with the intention of issuing a certificate of practical completion Four days later, given Mears' concerns over the financial impact that the smaller rooms might have on its future income from letting the accommodation, Mears obtained an injunction restraining the issuance of the practical completion certificate An expedited trial of certain issues was also ordered at this time As part of these expedited proceedings, Mears sought five declarations from the court The first three declarations related to whether Costplan was permitted to certify practical completion whilst there were known material or substantial defects andor material and substantial breaches of the AFL Declaration 4 was the main focus of judicial attention and was worded as follows(4) That, on a true construction of the AFL, any failure to construct one or more of the rooms of the Property such that they are not more than 3 smaller than the sizes specified in the hellip drawings contained in the Building Documents hellip or (contrary to Mears' primary case) such alternative room sizes otherwise agreed to by Mears is a material and substantial breach of Clause 62 of the AFL andor constitutes a material and substantial defect in the worksDeclaration 5 sought a finding that one or more of the rooms had, in fact, been constructed more than 3 smaller than the size(s) specified in the AFL or such alternative room sizes otherwise agreed to by MearsCourt at first instanceAt first instance, the High Court held that Mears was entitled to declaration 5, but declined to make declarations 1-4 It concluded that although there was a breach of clause 621 in relation to the size of the rooms, which the clause specified to be material, this did not necessarily mean that there was a material breach of the AFL, which would in turn prevent a certificate of practical completion being issued Waksman J commented that this elided two separate concepts, namely (a) the scale of the variation and (b) the scale of any resultant breachThe court was also not persuaded that if the breach of clause 621 was irremediable, then it must necessarily follow that practical completion could not occur other remedies would be, and were, available for such a breachMears appealed against the decision not to allow declarations 1-4Court of AppealThe Court of Appeal agreed with the judge at first instance It concluded that, in relation to clause 621hellip the parties were not saying that the resulting breach of contract was itself material The words of clause 621 do not say that Materiality is introduced only in relation to room size (materially affect the size), and not in relation to the resulting breach There is nothing in clause 621 which addresses the character or quality of the breach The clause simply provides a mechanism by which a breach of contract can be indisputably identifiedThe court went on to say that if the parties were taken to have agreed that any failure to meet the 3 tolerance, however trivial, was a material breach of contract, the result would be very uncommercial and that clear words would be necessary for such a draconian result The Court of Appeal was of the view that no such wording existed in the AFL Summary of case law in relation to practical completionAs part of the judgment, Lord Justice Coulson reviewed the case law in relation to the meaning of practical completion and distilled the following principlesThere are no definitive rules as to the meaning of practical completion Latent defects will not prevent practical completion With regard to patent defects, there is no difference between outstanding work and defective work requiring remedial action Practical completion can be achieved when the works have been completed free from patent defects, other than ones to be ignored as trifling Whether or not an item is trifling is a matter of fact and degree, to be measured against the purpose of allowing the employers to take possession of the works and to use them as intended (Jarvis Sons Limited v Westminster Corporation Another 1969 1 WLR 1448) There is no judicial support for the proposition that an irremediable defect prevents practical completionConclusionThis case provides some helpful guidance as to the reality of when practical completion can be said to have occurred, as well as a useful summary of the law on this point It is worth keeping in mind, however, that this case turned solelynbspon the construction of clause 621 of the AFL The courts were, therefore, not entitled to consider whether, as a matter of fact, the breaches complained of were sufficient to justify rescission of the AFL or render the certificate of practical completion invalid, nor what an appropriate remedy would be for the breaches that is the subject of further litigation and we will keep you informed of any relevant updates in due course

Related sectors:

Related services:

Related news & insights

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

News / Climate change litigation: Courts decide the law, not political policies

02-03-2022 / Energy & Infrastructure

R (Finch) v Surrey County Council CA (Civ Div) [2022] EWCA Civ 187 “The task of the court in a claim such as this is only to decide the issues of law. Those issues cannot extend into the realm of political judgment – which is the responsibility of the executive, not the courts …”

Climate change litigation: Courts decide the law, not political policies