A paper based on on the second prize entry in the Hudson Prize essay competition 2015 presented to a meeting of the Society of Construction Law in London on 5th July 2016
Rachel Gwilliam argues that the limits on recovery of costs which followed the 2009 reforms of the Construction Act can be overtaken by reliance on the current text of the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998. This implies terms into every relevant business to business contract for interest on a debt and for compensation for late payment, as well as (since 2013) compensation for the costs of recovering debts to which the 1998 Act applies.This most recent extension comes from implementation of an EU Directive of 2011, which as such therefore takes priority over the Construction Act if the two statutes are in conflict.The author goes on to say that the two statutes can in fact be reconciled; she concludes by considering the conditions for claiming compensation for adjudication costs under the 1998 Act.
Introduction - The Late Payment Act - Does the Late Payment Act conflict with the HGCRA? - No conflict? - Applying the Late Payment Act - 'A substantial remedy' and construction - Conclusions.
The author: Rachel Gwilliam LLB has a Postgraduate Certificate in Construction Adjudication from King's College London and is a partner with Blake Morgan LLP, Cardiff; e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Text: 11 pages