Egger (Barony) & Co Ltd ("Egger") and Skanska Construction UK Ltd ("Skanska") entered into a contract in April 1997. Skanska was to procure and achieve the design and construction of a factory for a guaranteed maximum price of £12m. Skanska agreed to perform the design, development, management, construction, procurement, and construction functions. Egger was to supply and install the specialist plant and equipment necessary for the production of finished chipboard from the basic raw material.
Among other claims, Skanska claimed compound interest on the difference between the interim valuations prepared by Skanska each month between May 1997 and June 1998 and the amounts paid by Egger on the following alternative basses: (1) a claim for expense pursuant to their contract; (2) damages for breach of contract; (3) pursuant to the Supreme Court Act. The trial Judge found that Skanska was entitled to interest as an expense and as damages for breach of contract.
Egger appealed from the judge's award of £196,985.70 awarded for interest on underpayments by Egger on interim payment applications made by Skanska. Egger appealed this point on the basis of a new argument raised at a hearing after the judge's finding that Skanska was entitled to interest.
This appeal was dismissed. Egger claimed that the amount of interest claimed by Skanska was excessive because the amounts claimed in some, if not all, of the individual interim valuations prepared by Skanska was excessive. However, Egger had not pleaded any different figures for the interim valuations although it was open to them to do so. The Appeal Court was unable to determine the true value of the interim valuations. Practical completion of the work was achieved in 1998. Protracted and expensive litigation followed. In accordance with the overriding objective to deal with cases justly, there should now be finality.
Contact Fenwick Elliott on 020 7421 1986 or NGould@fenwickelliott.co.uk
*Full case details
Skanska Construction UK Ltd vs Egger (Barony) Ltd, Court of Appeal, LJ Buxton, LJ Dyson and HHJ Kay  EWCA Civ 501
This case demonstrates that the appeal process through the courts is not never-ending and parties will not be able to continually raise new arguments at appeal. In this case the court took a pragmatic view of the appeal against the award of compound interest, as justice demanded that there should be finality of the case due to the protracted litigation that had followed practical completion on the project.