0370 270 6000

TCC issues guidance regarding the matters an independent tester should take into account when certifying practical completion

8 August 2014

In ORourke Construction Ltd v Healthcare Support (Newcastle) Ltd and Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2014] EWHC 2595 (TCC), the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) gave guidance on the matters an independent tester or certifier should take into account when considering whether or not to certify practical completion under a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) scheme.

Background

The case related to the construction of facilities at two hospitals for Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust), built under a PFI scheme. The facilities were built by the claimant under an agreement with Healthcare Support (Newcastle) Ltd (HSN), which was entered into on the same day as HSN entered into an agreement with the Trust by which it agreed to design, build and finance the redevelopment of the facilities and to provide other related services. Both contracts made provision for an independent professional to act as the independent tester under a separate contract.

The dispute arose because the claimant contended that parts of the work were completed in mid-2012 but the independent tester had not certified completion. Accordingly, the claimant sought declarations regarding the manner in which the independent tester was to act when deciding whether or not to certify practical completion. The claimant contended that all that was required to achieve practical completion was compliance with certain completion criteria set out in the project agreement (the construction contract having materially the same terms). The Trust contended that any breach of contract relating to the quality or conformity of the works, no matter how small, required the independent tester to withhold the completion certificate.

Decision

The court held that the independent tester must exercise its professional judgment when deciding whether or not to certify practical completion. Based on what it considered to be the correct construction of the contracts, it agreed with the claimants interpretation and granted one declaration along the lines sought by the claimant.

Comment

The decision accords with what one might expect for a dispute regarding practical completion under a building contract (industry practice is for a snagging list to be issued at the same time as a practical completion certificate). Such disputes are common, since parties having different commercial interests as to when practical completion is achieved.

However, there remains a lack of clarity as to the meaning of practical completion under a building contract, particularly regarding the extent to which an architect is given discretion to certify where (similar to here) there are very minor items of work left incomplete.

ORourke provides some interesting comment in this regard (albeit within a PFI context). The TCC considered it relevant that the practical completion certificate was not conclusive evidence of the quality of the work or that the buildings were in accordance with the specification. Applying well-established principles of contractual construction, it held that it was important whether or not a non-conformity "has or is likely to have a materially adverse effect on the enjoyment and use of the building by the Trust in the manner contemplated by the agreements". If it did not, the independent tester could issue the completion certificate and leave the Trust to its remedy in damages for the non-conforming work. This was "quintessentially a matter of fact and degree". The independent tester had to exercise his professional judgement. It will be interesting to see if these comments are referred to in relation to building contracts.

The judgment suggests that there were other disputes between the parties which had resulted in them seeking commercial levers to improve their negotiating position. The TCC was clear the independent tester had to put such disputes to one side.

The judgment also reinforces the importance of clarity and precision in drafting. Here, the Trust submitted that if it "could identify any non-conformity with the terms of the contract and bring it to the attention of the Independent Tester, he would be bound to refuse to issue a completion certificate if he agreed that the nonconformity alleged did in fact exist … it did not matter whether the nonconformity would or would not adversely affect the amenity value or functional use of the offices." The Trust failed to persuade the court that this was the correct interpretation of the contract.

The lesson is clear - if a party wishes certain conditions to be fulfilled before a practical completion certificate is issued, they need to be clearly spelt out in the contract. This is especially important given the courts guidance regarding practical completion (see above). A related point is the importance of ensuring that a project agreement and construction contract are back to back in relation to completion requirements.

Training and events

24May

Part 2: LPS - it's out - what do you need to know? ON24 webinar

The much anticipated draft Mental Capacity Act Code of Practice and Regulations, including the Liberty Protection Safeguards (“LPS”), has arrived, and following on from our popular session on 12 April, you are invited to join us for two further webinars on 24 May and 23 June.

View event

8Jun

LUPC & SUPC Conference 2022 etc.venues, 133 Houndsditch, Liverpool Street, London EC3A 7BX

Come and meet the team at Stand 5 in the exhibition hall at the 7th joint consortia event to discuss how we can support you & your institution.

View event

Focus on...

Press releases

Brace of awards for Browne Jacobson at Insider East Midlands Dealmakers Awards 2022

Browne Jacobson’s corporate finance team is celebrating after winning the prestigious “Corporate Law Firm of the Year’ award at this year’s East Midlands Dealmakers Awards.

View

Blogs

Vaccinations in the Workplace: a higher expectation than one may think

There is currently no legislation requiring employees within the UK to have the COVID-19 vaccine. However, a recent Acas survey found that approximately 22% of employers intend to require their new staff to have the COVID-19 vaccination, and 21% would require their existing staff to be vaccinated too.

View

Legal updates

Integrated Care Systems: practical steps for 1 July 2022

ICSs have been introduced with the intention of uniting the operations of hospitals, community-based services, and health and social care bodies across their respective places.

View

Grievances, complaints and whistleblowing. Managing the impact of difficult behaviour

In the first of our two-part webinar series on ‘managing the impact of difficult employee behaviour’ regulatory and employment experts Ros Foster and James Tait look at what is, and what isn’t, whistleblowing in the context of grievance and complaints procedures.

View

The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up