HomeAccessibilityIndependent approachTurnaround timeCommunication skillsFee structures
solicitors -  commercial legal work

Arbitration
Assets/shares buy/sell
Commercial advice
Company law
Company start ups
Competition law
Confidentiality
Construction & building
Contract advice
Conveyancing
Copyright
Debt recovery
Design rights
Directors duties
Discrimination
Dismissal law
E-commerce
Employment
European law
Franchising
Infringement
Insurance
Intellectual property
Joint ventures
Libel
Licensing (premises)
Litigation (commercial)
Merchandising
Music & entertainment
Negligence (general)
Partnerships
Passing-off
Patents
Planning
Professional negligence
Redundacy
Reinsurance
Shareholders
Software
Sponsorship
Sports contracts
Trade Marks (Trademarks)
Unfair dismissal

CONSTRUCTION LAW Adjudication - jurisdiction - installation of shop fittings - meaning of "construction operations" [Housing Grant, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 s.104(5), s.105(1), s.108.]. G, who had undertaken to supply and install shop fittings in four of M's stores, sought a declaration that the work completed amounted to "construction operations" for the purposes of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 s.105(1) with the result that G had a right to refer a dispute between the parties to adjudication pursuant to S.108. G submitted that the provisions contained within s.105 should be interpreted purposively and that the installation of the relevant shop fittings should be characterised as "construction operations" under s.104(5). Held, refusing the declaration, that the installation of shop fittings did not amount to "construction operations" unless it involved the construction or installation of structures or fittings forming part of the relevant land within s.105(1). That wording imported into s.105 the general law relating to fixtures. It was well established that mere attachment was not enough to convert a chattel into a realty, Lyon & Co v. London City and Midland Bank [1903] 2 K.B. 125 considered. In the instant case, the fitting of display units to the floor was simply to ensure their stability but the fitting of display units to the floor was simply to ensure their stability but the fittings could have remained free standing such that none of the items installed were fixtures. Therefore, the work completed by G did not amount to "construction operations" nor were the contracts "construction contracts" within the meaning of the Act and therefore G's application failed. GIBSON LEA RETAIL INTERIORS LTD v. MAKRO SELF SERVICE WHOLESALERS LTD [2001] B.L.R. 407, Judge Richard Seymour Q.C. QBD (T & CC). "Current Law" November 2001
E-mail us with details of your enquiry on construction@humphreys.co.uk
Include your telephone number,
fax number and address.

Tel (0117) (international +44 117) 929 2662 
Fax (0117) (international +44 117) 929 2722




Relevant material




Building dispute : claimant must act reasonably
 
Contracts - civil evidence - construction law
 
Breach of collateral contract: quantum: assessment: expected profits
 
Building and construction - contract - damages
 
Avoiding payment of an adjudicator's decision
 
Riding the troughs
 
Adjudication - jurisdiction - installation of shop fittings
 
Technology & Construction Court
 
Letters of demand
 
Technology & Construction Court (TCC)
 


Humphreys & Co., solicitors Bristol



Click here for information about the work we do for private clients.

© Copyright Humphreys & Co., solicitors

Home Page