The item you have requested is not currently available in English and you have been redirected to the next available page. You may use your browser's back button to return to the item you were viewing.
Country desks feature Dentons lawyers in one jurisdiction with a particular focus or experience in another jurisdiction.
Learn more about our Canada capabilities
Learn more about our United States capabilities
Learn more about our Latin America and the Caribbean capabilities
Learn more about our Europe capabilities
Learn more about our United Kingdom capabilities
Learn more about our Central and Eastern Europe capabilities
Learn more about our Russia, CIS and the Caucasus capabilities
Learn more about our Africa capabilities
Learn more about our Middle East capabilities
Learn more about our Central Asia capabilities
Learn more about our China capabilities
Learn more about our Asia Pacific capabilities
Learn more about our Australia capabilities
At Dentons, we bring together top tier talent found at the intersection of geography, industry knowledge and substantive legal expertise. Start by clicking here
Dentons recognized by Working Mother as one of the 60 best law firms for women
Dentons, the global law firm, has once again been named one of the 60 best law firms for women by Working Mother magazine in its annual "Best Law Firms for Women" report.
Proposed changes to Act to enable stamp duty on electronic contracts for Real Estate
The Government has just tabled a Bill to amend the Stamp Duties Act (Cap. 312) with the main objective of applying the Act to an electronic record that wholly or partly effects a property or share transaction, or evidences such a transaction.
Hospital system pays $84.5 million to settle AKS and Stark Law violations
A Michigan health care system has agreed to pay $84.5 million to resolve a False Claims Act case based on alleged violations of the federal Stark Law and Anti-Kickback Statute.
Will it be mandatory to companies in Central America to comply with GDPR?
After years of preparation, the first community regulation for the protection of personal data, the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation), came into force.
CMS offers teaching hospitals new flexibility in FY 2019 IPPS final rule
In August 2018, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released the agency’s fiscal year 2019 inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS) final rule.
Starting your career as a student at Dentons exposes you to a world of experience and opportunities
With 125+ locations in 50+ countries, Dentons is home to top-tier talent that is found at the intersection of geography, industry knowledge and substantive legal experience. Working with Dentons, you will have the opportunity to learn from the best lawyers in the industry at the largest law firm in the world.
David Wotherspoon named one of Canada’s Top 25 Most Influential Lawyers
Dentons is proud to announce that David Wotherspoon, Partner and Lead of the Firm’s Litigation and Dispute Resolution group in Vancouver, has been named one of Canada’s Top 25 Most Influential Lawyers in the Corporate Commercial category by Canadian Lawyer.
Dentons Rodyk welcomes Yi Jing Teo to the Firm's Corporate practice group
Dentons Rodyk is pleased to announce that Yi Jing Teo has joined the Firm as a Partner in the Corporate practice group.
Dentons welcomes James O’Sullivan and Rick Skeith as partners in our Calgary office
Dentons is pleased to announce that James O’Sullivan and Rick Skeith have joined the Firm in our Calgary office as partners in our Corporate group.
What makes a valid payment and pay less notice? This was one of the questions considered by Alexander Nissen QC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge in the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) in Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust v. Logan Construction (South East) Ltd  EWHC 17 (TCC). Applying recent judgments, Nissen QC held that the contractor's interim payment notice was valid but, perhaps unexpectedly, also held the employer's pay less notice to be valid. His decision both provides guidance for contract administrators and highlights the scope for the issue of pay less notices contingent on two (or more) contractual payment scenarios.
The claimant, Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust (the Trust), employed Logan Construction (South East) Ltd (Logan) under a JCT Intermediate 2011 Contract form to refurbish various operating theatres and carry out associated works. On 20 September 2016, after practical completion had been achieved and the Certificate of Making Good issued, another interim payment was due but Logan did not apply for payment and nor did the Trust issue an interim payment certificate.
Discussions on the final account began and Logan submitted papers to the Trust in preparation for a final account meeting. That submission, which included a document entitled "interim payment notice number 24", arrived late at night on the day before the meeting and the Trust's contract administrator assumed the notice was intended to assist with the final account discussions. The issuing of an interim certificate was not referred to at the subsequent meeting. Agreement was not reached on the final account and the parties agreed to mediate.
The next day, 21 September, the Trust's contract administrator sent out an email containing the final certificate, which was copied to Logan's representative. This email referenced the interim payment notice, concluded it was out of date and void and added, as a contingency, that "the details stated in the Final Certificate are the same as would have been stated in any final Interim Certificate which may have been issued".
Over a week after the interim payment notice was served, Logan pointed out that the Trust had not served a pay less notice and requested payment of the balance due on interim payment notice 24. The Trust refused and Logan took the dispute to adjudication. The adjudicator found in favour of Logan: the interim payment notice of 20 September 2017 was valid and, in the absence of a pay less notice, the Trust became responsible for the full amount specified in the payment notice.
The Trust issued court proceedings to obtain declarations that the interim payment notice was invalid and that the Trust's email of 21 September was a valid pay less notice.
In finding that the payment notice was valid, Nissen QC worked through the precedents put to him (including Caledonian Modular Ltd v. Mar City Developments Ltd  BLR 694, Henia Investments Inc. v. Beck Interiors Ltd  BLR 704 and Jawaby Property Investment Ltd v. The Interiors Group Ltd  BLR 328), and confirmed:
"there is a high threshold to be met by any contractor who seeks to take advantage of [the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act] provisions whereby a sum automatically becomes payable if a timely employer's [pay less] notice is not served". (See paragraph 37 of the judgment.)
Nissen QC thought it relevant to construe the nature of the notice against both the contractual and factual setting of the case. The fact that the Trust's contract administrator had been in breach of contract for not issuing the interim certificate earlier was a relevant fact. In the absence of a certificate, Logan was contractually entitled to issue an interim payment notice. The notice served was legible, clear, free from ambiguity and an interim payment notice in substance, form and intent. Further, there were "sufficient indications both on the face of the document itself and in the description of the attachment to the email to make clear that Logan intended to issue an interim payment notice": it was titled an "interim payment notice" and the Trust had referred to it as such in its email of 21 September.
On the basis that the notice was valid, Logan would have been entitled to be paid the balance of the sum set out in the notice unless the Trust had issued a valid pay less notice.
The Trust argued: "… in contrast to the position which applies to contractors' [payment] notices, the law adopts a different, less prescriptive, standard when it comes to considering whether a document constitutes a valid pay less notice". Because of the "draconian consequences" which flow from a failure to have issued a pay less notice, "any complaints about the form of a notice which are artificial or contrived should be rejected". (See Thomas Vale Construction plc v. Brookside Syston Ltd  EWHC 3637.)
The Trust also relied on Sir Peter Coulson's book on Construction Adjudication, 3rd edition at paragraph 3.30 as support for the Trust's practical views that: the 21 September email, when read alongside the final certificate, was sufficient to amount to a pay less notice; one document can serve two different purposes at the same time; and the email contained all the information necessary to put Logan on notice of how much the Trust proposed to pay and the basis upon which that sum had been calculated.
In turn, Logan argued that the email could not constitute a valid pay less notice because the writer had plainly not intended it to be such a notice.
Nissen QC dismissed as irrelevant the fact that the email was only copied to Logan: the fact was that Logan had received it. The Trust had complied with the contractual requirements for a pay less notice: it had specified the sum considered to be due to Logan at the date of the notice and the basis upon which that sum had been calculated.
It boiled down to the key issue: were the email and its final certificate attachment, when read together, intended to constitute a pay less notice?
Nissen QC agreed with Logan that it is an essential requirement that the sender should have the requisite intention, but found that that intention must be derived from the manner in which it would have informed the reasonable recipient. Arguing that the email did not evidence the intention because it was not described as a pay less notice focuses too much on the specific detail of the language used by the sender and not on the overall message and purpose which the email and attachments would have conveyed to the reasonable recipient.
Putting this into context, the contract administrator's email effectively communicated to Logan the amount the Trust considered was due – whether by way of final account or interim payment – and gave a breakdown: no more information was needed. Viewed broadly, one intention of the email and its attachments was to respond to the interim payment notice.
Interestingly, Nissen saw "no difficulty with the notion of serving a contingent pay less notice" – that is, one that dealt with both the final account and alternative, interim payment, position. The contract administrator was saying that, if he was wrong about the invalidity of the interim payment notice, the final certificate reflected everything he wanted to say in response to it.
Nissen QC concluded that the Trust's email and its attachment did indeed have the necessary intention (as required by Jawaby).
The recent splurge of payment notice cases shows clearly the dangers that lie in not administering contractual paperwork correctly and on time. Contract administrators in any doubt about the nature of documents dealing with payment should ensure their response is provided in timely fashion, is described specifically (as a pay less notice) and sets out clearly what is due and how that sum breaks down.
No contract administrator could possibly relish the experience of waiting for a court's decision on the validity of its paperwork. The Surrey case offers a little support: if in doubt about the nature of payment documents or the validity of a payment notice, contract administrators can hedge their position by giving a response that sets out the position they believe to be true – and a contingent response just in case they are wrong.
For further information, contact one of the team listed under Key Contacts.
The URL of this tweet is below. Copy it to easily share with friends.
Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more