Cases - Comsite Projects Ltd v Andritz AG
Record details
- Name
- Comsite Projects Ltd v Andritz AG
- Date
- [2003]
- Citation
- EWHC 958
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Construction contracts - adjudication - construction operations - plant - installation of plant and supply of building services - whether the installation of electrics fell within the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration act 1996, section 105 - whether the building services contract was a construction contract - Housing Grants, Construction Contracts 1996, section 104; section 105
- Summary
-
Andritz had been appointed on a contract for the installation of a dryer plant along with all building services to the dryer building of a new waste water treatment works and sewage sludge recycling centre on the Isle of Wight.
Andritz sublet the building services works, comprising mainly lighting, small power, fire alarm and ventilation systems, to Comsite. Austrian law applied to the subcontract and the Austrian courts had exclusive jurisdiction.
This case was brought as a Part 8 claim for a declaration that Comsite's works fell within the definition of construction contracts as set out in section 105 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996.
Having established that the English courts had jurisdiction to hear the Part 8 claim, notwithstanding the jurisdiction clause in the contract, the judge went on to consider whether the work undertaken by Comsite amounted to 'construction operations' pursuant to the provisions of the Act. He concluded that as a matter of fact, the building and the services within the building were needed for health and safety reasons and that without them the dryer plant could not lawfully be operated. However, he concluded on the evidence before him that the building and the building services were not needed to enable the plant physically to function. He then concluded that while the installation of electrics, which were an integral part of the dryer plant, would fall within section 105 of the Act, in his judgment the services to the building that were not to be connected into the plant, were not plant of their own right. The fact that the plant may not lawfully operate without some of the services did not mean that the services are integral to the plant and so to fall within the definition of plant in section 105. The judge therefore concluded that the building services subcontract constituted a construction contract as defined in section 104 of the Act, and that therefore both parties had the right to refer the dispute arising under the subcontract to adjudication.