The case of Workman Properties Ltd v Adi Building and Refurbishment Ltd involved the expansion of existing facilities at Cotteswold Dairy in Gloucestershire. The dispute centred on the design responsibilities under an amended JCT Design and Build Contract 2016, specifically regarding the completion of the design to RIBA Stage 4 and/or BSRIA Stage 4.  This case sheds light on several important legal principles and underpins concerns raised by FIS regarding the impact on the levels of design completeness and greater risk being pushed into the finishes and interiors sector in the face of increased building complexity and concerns related to compliance and insurability in the architectural world.  The key points of the case were:

1. Design Responsibility

• The court clarified that the contractor, ADI, was responsible for completing the design to RIBA Stage 4/BSRIA Stage 4 (i). This decision rejected ADI’s argument that Workman Properties had warranted the design’s completeness.
• The judgment emphasized the importance of clear contractual terms in defining design responsibilities. It highlighted that the contractor must ensure compliance with the employer’s requirements, even if the design is incomplete at the time of contract formation.

2. Contractual Interpretation

• The court underscored the principle that contracts should be interpreted based on their written terms rather than subjective intentions or pre-contractual negotiations.
• ADI’s reliance on pre-contractual exchanges and subjective understandings was deemed irrelevant and inadmissible. This reinforces the importance of relying on the contract documents themselves for interpretation.

3. Suitability of Part 8 Procedure

• In another concerning aspect of the judgement, the court found that the adjudicators decisions were based on an incorrect interpretation of the contract.  ADI had previously succeeded in adjudications related to design obligations and financial claims.
• The court emphasized that the Civil Procedure Rules Part was appropriate for resolving the dispute, as the issues were primarily legal and did not involve substantial factual disputes. In this the court rejected ADI’s contention regarding the relevance of pre-contractual negotiations and subjective understandings (the facts of the case).
• In doing this the court’s decision clarified the contractual position regarding design responsibility, providing a foundation for resolving future disputes efficiently (setting precedence).

This case serves as a reminder of checking the design and pricing risk when confronted with an incomplete design, the importance of precise drafting in construction contracts and the limitations of relying on external factors and secondary communications for adapting the principles set down in the contract.