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