Cases - Hounslow LBC v Twickenham Garden (CIP)

Record details

Name

Hounslow LBC v Twickenham Garden (CIP)

Date

[1971]

Citation

Ch 233

Keywords

Contract - obligation to proceed regularly and diligently - termination -- work ceasing due to strike - architect's notice of termination - repudiation - election - whether the employer was entitled to determine the contract due to the contractor's alleged failure to proceed regularly and diligently with the works - whether the architect's notice was valid - RIBA Contract

Summary

For a period of 6 months, the relevant construction site was closed by a strike. A number of months after work resumed, the architect purported to give notice to the contractors that they had failed to proceed regularly and diligently with the works, and that unless within 14 days there was an appreciable improvement, the council would be entitled to determine their employment. Some weeks later, the council purported to determine the contractors' employment under the contract. The contractors informed the council that their actions were regarded as repudiatory, but that they would not accept the repudiation of the contract, and that they elected to proceed with the contract works in accordance with the terms of the contract.

The council sought to restrain the contractors until judgment in the action or further order from 'entering, remaining or otherwise trespassing on the site or from interfering in any way with the council's lawful possession of the same'.

The Court held that on the facts, the council fell short of establishing the factual basis that underlay the notice. However, as to the validity of the form of the notice, the Court considered that a notice of default by the architect under clause 25(1) of the RIBA conditions was required to direct the contractor's mind to what is said to be amiss. The conditions did not require the architect, at his peril, to spell out accurately in his notice further and better particulars of the particular default in question. If the contractor had sought particulars of the alleged default and had been refused them, other considerations might have arisen.