Gibson Lea Retail Interiors Ltd v Makro Ltd [2001] BLR 407

This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP.

For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes

In this case, shop fitting works were not "construction operations" under HGCRA 1996 since the fittings supplied were not "fixtures".

HHJ Seymour QC, Technology and Construction Court

24 July 2001

M employed G to undertake the supply and installation of shop fittings in four stores. The work for each store had a separate contract and in each case was formed by M's acceptance by an order of a quotation submitted by G. The items supplied and installed were fixed to ensure they would be stable; however the moveable nature of the equipment supplied by G was emphasised. G rendered various invoices to M in respect of the works which were not paid by M. G sought a declaration by way of summary judgment that the works forming the subject of contracts between the parties were "construction operations" for the purposes of Part II of the HGCR Act 1996 and that as a consequence, G was entitled to refer disputes arising under the contracts to adjudication.

The meaning of "construction operations" is dealt within section 105(1) of the Act. The judge thought it clear that shop fitting would not amount to "construction operations" unless it was "construction…of…structures forming or to form, part of the land (whether permanent or not)" (section 105(1)(a)) or "installation in any building or structure of fittings forming part of the land." (section 105(1)(c)). The determination of this issue concerned whether the fitting or structure, when completed, would amount to a fixture, which in the context of real property would be determined by determining whether the attachment was intended to be permanent.

M submitted that none of the items supplied by G were intended to form "part of the land" and, following the cases of Lyon v London City and Midland Bank (1903) 2 KB 135 and Horwich v Symond (1915) 84 LJKB 1083 in the law of real property, a chattel secured to the structure of the building was not sufficient to constitute a fixture. G submitted that the court should take a purposive approach to construe the definition of "construction operations" as including everything which arguably fell within it which was not specifically excluded by section 105(2) of the Act. G also relied on Hansard discussions in Parliament about the Act which stated the general rule was "an object which is attached to the land or which is attached to something else which is attached to the land would be covered by the provisions'.

The judge found the Hansard to be inaccurate and in any event should not be considered, as the words of section 105(1)(a) were clear and unambiguous. The judge accepted M's submissions and held that none of the items supplied by G to M were fixtures. Therefore the works done were not "construction operations" and the relevant contracts were not "construction contracts". The application for summary judgment was dismissed.

In this case, shop fitting works were not "construction operations" under HGCRA 1996 since the fittings supplied were not "fixtures".

This summary was provided by CMS Cameron McKenna LLP.

For more information visit http://www.cms-cmck.com/Construction/Construction-Disputes

Click here to read full-screen | Click here to print the case