Following a contentious legal battle, the High Court has ruled in favour of a plumbing subcontractor, mandating a £102,000 payment from another contractor.
- The dispute centred on a plumbing subcontractor’s unfinished works at a Bouygues-led project at Brighton University’s Moulsecoomb Campus.
- J&B Hopkins was found in breach of contract after removing their subcontractor, A&V Building Solution Ltd, from critical software.
- A&V’s claim for work completion percentages was partly validated despite Hopkins’ counterclaims of theft and incomplete work.
- The final ruling awarded A&V a total debt of £101,543.17 after accounting for previous payments.
In a significant judgement by the High Court, a tier two contractor has been ordered to pay £101,542 to a plumbing subcontractor, J&B Hopkins, due to unresolved disputes over tasks performed at a Bouygues-led university construction project in West Sussex. Originally contracted in 2019 for Brighton University’s Moulsecoomb Campus, J&B Hopkins assigned plumbing tasks to A&V Building Solution Ltd, valued at £447,800 for labour only. However, A&V departed the project prematurely in March 2021 with some work incomplete, escalating the dispute to the courts.
The ruling found J&B Hopkins in ‘repudiatory breach of subcontract’ for unilaterally withdrawing the inclusion of A&V from critical software tracking, which is essential for monitoring progress and compliance. Justice Roger ter Haar KC determined that A&V’s exit did not constitute a breach, as argued by J&B Hopkins. Thus, A&V’s claims concerning the completion percentage of their work packages—stated at 80%—were partially upheld, contradicting Hopkins’ claims of mere 10% completion.
A contentious point involved a £6,000 counterclaim by J&B Hopkins, accusing A&V employees of theft. Despite the fact that an A&V plumber was caught attempting to pilfer copper, this incident was deemed isolated and insufficient to substantiate widespread theft claims. The court dismissed this counterclaim, as J&B Hopkins failed to specify the total value of any allegedly stolen materials.
Justice ter Haar further negated A&V’s demand for compensation due to lost business opportunities allegedly caused by J&B Hopkins’ actions. He noted that A&V’s business strategy appeared overly reliant on the sub-contracted works from Hopkins, suggesting that their operational difficulties stemmed from this dependency rather than external hindrances.
Ultimately, A&V was awarded a payment total of £466,452.81 for their services rendered and profit losses. Considering previous payments totalling £364,909.64, the court adjudicated an outstanding balance of £101,543.17, bringing a conclusion to this protracted legal contention.
The High Court’s decision exemplifies the complexities of construction legalities and the importance of detailed contractual adherence.
