Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
without a certificate, but the court pointed out that the issue of a certificate by KFM was
not said to be binding on the parties.
That left the claim for management time in claiming payment. The court described it as
a 'fairly modest amount'. Derwent had not made any positive defence to the claim, so the
best it could do was to make Clancy prove the amount. The court gave some useful guid-
ance to claiming these kinds of costs:
Claimsofthissort...arenotalwayseasytoestablish.Theyrequiretwothings,above
all: first, they require a proper causal link between the cost incurred and the alleged
default on the part of the defendant; and, secondly, they require proof of the extent to
which the ordinary trading routine of the claimant was disturbed.
Because the case was an application for summary judgment, the court declined to award
these costs, but it described the defence as 'unpromising' and required the sum claimed
to be paid into court as a condition of allowing Derwent to defend. The court seemed to
accept the claim in principle but allowed Derwent to argue as to the amount. One never
knowswhichpaymentsaregoingtobeapaintocollect, buttheguidancegiveninthiscase
indicates that if one is contemplating legal action for recovery, a good record of the time
spent trying to get payment in the period before the legal action starts is essential.
1
2
3
4
CPR Rule 25.1(1)(m).
Robinson v Harman
(1848) 1 Ex 850.
Pickard Finlason Partnership Ltd v Lock & Another
[2014] EWHC 25 (TCC).
Ruttle Plant Hire Ltd v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
[2009] EWCA Civ
97.
[2010] EWHC 762 (TCC).
5
