Cookie consent

This website uses cookies to collect information about how you use this website. Atkin Chambers uses this information to make the website work as well as possible and improve the services provided by members and staff. You may choose to accept all cookies or chose to manage your cookie settings here:

Cookies on atkinchambers.com

Cookies are files saved on your phone, tablet or computer when you visit a website.

Atkin Chambers uses this information to make the website work as well as possible and improve the services provided by members and staff. You may choose to accept all cookies or chose to manage your cookie settings here:

Cookie settings

Atkin Chambers Limited use two types of cookie files, analytical cookies and necessary cookies. You can choose which cookies you are happy for us to use.

Analytical cookies that measure website use

Atkin Chambers Limited use Google Analytics to measure how you use the website so it can be improved based on user needs. Atkin Chambers do not allow Google to use or share the data about how you use this site.

Google Analytics sets cookies that store anonymised information about:

  • how you got to the site
  • the pages you visit on atkinchambers.com, and how long you spend on each page
  • what you click on while you’re visiting the site

Strictly necessary cookies

These essential cookies do things like remember your progress through a form (for example if you register for updates). They always need to be on.

Save changes

Colas Ltd & Ors v Transport for London [2018] EWHC 831 (TCC)

18th Apr 2018

Colas Limited, Volkerhighways Limited and AECOM Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited (together acting as an unincorporated joint venture (“CVU”) entered into a framework agreement with the defendant Transport for London (“TfL”) in 2013 for the provision of highway maintenance services in central London (“the Framework Agreement”). The Framework Agreement made provision for the parties to enter into Call Off Contracts in respect of the services to be carried out by CVU during the eight-year term of the Framework Agreement.

A schedule of rates agreed between CVU and TfL included rates for roadworks, that would be ordered by a scheme of ‘Task Requests’ that required permits to allow CVU to carry them out. Permits could be issued with conditions that included work restrictions affecting the cost of performing the works. The extent of such restrictions could not be determined when the schedule was agreed and such restrictions were different from those provided for in the Call-Off Contract. CVU applied for a declaration that the schedule of rates they had agreed with TfL did not include projects that required permits containing extra restrictions on the carrying out of the works. TfL applied for a declaration that the rates included such works.

The issue for determination was the contractual allocation of risk between the parties in respect of restrictions imposed by the permits required for the works on a proper construction of the Framework Agreement and the Call Off Contract against the background regulatory scheme.

Mrs Justice O’Farrell declined to make the declarations sought by CVU and made the declaration sought by TfL, namely, that CVU is not entitled to submit prices within its Task Responses on the basis that no item on the price list corresponds to the work or services for the proposed task, insofar as the relevant Task Request is subject to permit restrictions that change the conditions under which the works must be carried out from those provided for by the terms of the Call-Off Contract.

David Streatfeild-James QC Patrick Clarke (instructed by Fenwick Elliott LLP) for the Claimants

To read the full judgment please click here.

18 April 2018





Related Juristictions

Register for updates

To keep in touch with news and updates from Atkin Chambers:

 

Register