Success for Rogers & Norton’s Construction Team
Background
The Construction Team recently enjoyed success in a claim for a contractor who was owed a significant debt for building works, which was defended due to alleged defective works. The case had not settled at mediation and then proceeded to trial.
The contract stated payment was due “on completion of the installation.” The remaining balance however, was never paid, resulting in court proceedings to recover the outstanding amount.
In response, the employer alleged that due to defects, some of which were accepted, the contract was not completed. The contractor was willing to undertake necessary remedial works but maintained that payment was still due.
Key Takeaways
Substantial vs. Perfect Completion
The core legal issue was whether the installation had been “completed” such that payment was due. Hoenig v Isaacs and Keating on Construction Contracts was applied and it was our case that the work was substantially completed. i.e. done in an ordinary sense and fulfilling its primary function, despite minor defects.
This case reinforces the principle that minor defects do not justify withholding full payment where there is substantial or practical completion. Perfect compliance is not required unless expressly stated in the contract.
Consumer Rights Must Be Interpreted Narrowly
While consumer protection legislation (Consumer Rights Act 2015) gives a right to reject goods that are not of satisfactory quality, that right is not unlimited. Section 24(5) restricts rejection rights to cases where:
- The trader fails to repair/replace within a reasonable time,
- The consumer cannot require repair/replacement, or
- Repair/replacement fails to resolve the issue.
Here, the defendant’s right to reject was limited by having continued use of the building for over 7 years, undermining claims for a full refund or rescission.
Use and Value Over Time Matter
We also relied on Voaden v Champion, suggesting that any refund (if applicable) would need to be reduced proportionately to reflect nearly 7.5 years of benefit.
Conclusion
This case is a useful reminder that in construction disputes, especially involving consumer contracts, completion is not an all-or-nothing standard. Minor defects do not bar payment. Additionally, time elapsed, benefit received and contractual intentions all shape the court’s approach to damages or rejection.
Consumers cannot expect to receive substantial goods and services over many years for a nominal payment.
How We Can Help
If you’re a contractor facing delayed payments, liquidated damages and deductions or disputes over your work and designs, our specialist construction team is ready to support you.
We regularly act for contractors in County Court, High Court matters, Adjudications and Arbitrations helping resolve issues swiftly and cost-effectively.
For further advice and assistance in Construction matters please do not hesitate to contact Peter Hastings at peter.hastings@rogers-norton.co.uk
For more information on our legal services or to arrange an appointment with a member of our team, contact us at 01603 666001, email enquiries@rogers-norton.co.uk or complete the ‘Request a Consultation’ enquiry form on our website.
*This article is provided for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal or any other professional advice.