Parsons Plastics (Research and Development) Ltd v Purac Ltd: CA 12 Apr 2002

The claimants were main contractors on a construction project. The respondents were sub-contractors. After difficulties, the sub-contractor was ejected from the site. The issue was as to the jurisdiction of the adjudicator. Was the project, to create a sewage station, a ‘construction operation’ within the Act?
Held: The sum was due under the contract irrespective of whether an adjudicator also found it to be due. The contract could not be re-read to exclude the arbitration requirement. In this case the contractors were unlikely to succeed in any attempt to deny the sub-contractors their right to payment for works done, and payment should not be delayed for a set off claim. The judge was entitled, in her discretion, to make an interim award.


The Hon Mr Justice Latham


[2002] EWCA Civ 459, (2002) 93 Con LR 26




Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996


England and Wales


CitedSwain v Hillman CA 21-Oct-1999
Strike out – Realistic Not Fanciful Chance Needed
The proper test for whether an action should be struck out under the new Rules was whether it had a realistic as opposed to a fanciful prospect of success. There was no justification for further attempts to explain the meaning of what are clear . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Contract, Arbitration

Updated: 09 September 2022; Ref: scu.171203