header-logo header-logo

Civil practice and procedure—Service—Meaning of “delivered personally”

10 July 2009
Issue: 7377 / Categories: Case law , Law reports
printer mail-detail

Primus Build Ltd v Pompey Centre Ltd and anor [2009] EWHC 1487 (TCC), [2009] All ER (D) 14 (Jul)

Queen’s Bench Division, Technology and Construction Court, Coulson J, 16 Jun 2009

The Technology and Construction Court has held that the use of the expression “delivered personally” in a contract rather than the well-known concept of “personal service” means actual delivery by an appropriate individual within one company to an appropriate individual within the other, the method of delivery not mattering.

Lynne McCafferty (instructed by Fenwick Elliott) for the claimant. Gideon Scott Holland (instructed by Sellar Property Group) for the defendant.

The parties entered into a contract in October 2007 for the claimant to provide construction management services to the defendant in relation to the construction of a hotel and office building. The dispute resolution clause provided that in the first instance disputes were to be referred to the senior representatives or members of the board of directors of the parties. If the dispute was not resolved it would be referred to adjudication.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll