Cases - Bramall & Ogden v Sheffield City Council
Record details
- Name
- Bramall & Ogden v Sheffield City Council
- Date
- (1983)
- Citation
- 1 Con LR 30
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Construction contracts - liquidated damages - delayed completion - absence of formal sectional completion agreement - JCT standard form of contract (1963 edition) - extension of time - more than one liquidated damage clause - whether liquidated damages clauses inconsistent with each other - whether liquidated damages clauses to be construed against party trying to enforce
- Summary
-
The dispute between the claimant contractor and the defendant concerned the defendant's right to deduct liquidated damages and the extensions of time granted pursuant to a JCT Standard Form, 1963 edition contract for the construction of 123 dwellings. Clause 16(e) provided for a reduced sum to be payable after taking partial possession while the appendix provided for the award of liquidated damages 'at the rate of £20 per week for each uncompleted dwelling.' The date for completion was stated as 6 December 1976 and the final practical completion certificate awarded for each section of buildings taken over was given on 20 September 1978. No formal sectional completion agreement was entered into. The defendant kept back £26,150 in liquidated damages.
The Court, on appeal from an arbitrator's decision, found that in the absence of any provision for sectional completion the defendant was not entitled to claim or deduct liquidated damages as provided in the appendix.
It was held that the contract did not provide for sectional completion, that the defendant had taken possession under clause 16(e), but that clause 16(e) was inconsistent with the liquidated damages appendix, so was unenforceable. The Court affirmed the contractual provisions concerning extensions of time and liquidated damages should be construed strictly against an employer.
(It is noteworthy that the Court relied on the contra preferentem principle in arriving at this conclusion. It may be that, in the light of modern jurisprudence, the case would be decided differently today.)