Legal: A contract means what it says

By Robert Akenhead2019-08-22T05:00:00

Robert Akenhead explains how a literal interpretation of wording sent a contractor’s argument off the rails in a case on disallowed costs

While lawyers might be tempted to groan every time another authority is added to the mass of judicial guidance on the interpretation of provisions in a contract, decisions that consider the meaning of commonly used or well-known provisions are to be welcomed by practitioners and the industry alike. Such a decision has recently been handed down by Joanna Smith QC, sitting as a deputy judge in the Technology and Construction Court in the case of Network Rail Infrastructure vs ABC Electrification Ltd [2019] EWHC 1769 (TCC).

Already registered? Login here

To continue enjoying Building.co.uk, sign up for free guest access

Existing subscriber? LOGIN

Stay at the forefront of thought leadership with news and analysis from award-winning journalists. Enjoy company features, CEO interviews, architectural reviews, technical project know-how and the latest innovations.

Limited access to building.co.uk
Breaking industry news as it happens
Breaking, daily and weekly e-newsletters

Get your free guest access SIGN UP TODAY

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Subscribe to Building today and you will benefit from:

Unlimited access to all stories including expert analysis and comment from industry leaders
Our league tables, cost models and economics data
Our online archive of over 10,000 articles
Building magazine digital editions
Building magazine print editions
Printed/digital supplements

Subscribe now for unlimited access.

View our subscription options and join our community