ABSTRACT
Bowsher QC; Allied P&L Ltd v Paradigm Housing Group Ltd [2010] BLR 59 at 66 [30(b)] and 69 [38], per Akenhead J. 94 All In One Building & Refurbishments Ltd v Makers UK Ltd [2005] EWHC 2943 (TCC) at [21]–[22], per HHJ Wilcox; South West Contractors Ltd v Birakos Enterprises Ltd [2006] EWHC 2794 (TCC) at [28]– [29], per HHJ Wilcox. See also Allied P&L Ltd v Paradigm Housing Group Ltd [2010] BLR 59 at 66-67 [30(c)], per Akenhead J. 95 Dean & Dyball Construction Ltd v Kenneth Grubb Associates Ltd (2003) 100 Con LR 92 at 111 [41], per HHJ Seymour QC; AWG Construction Services Ltd v Rockingham Motor Speedway Ltd [2004] TCLR 6 at T126 [144], per HHJ Toulmin CMG QC. 96 Bovis Lend Lease Ltd v Trustees of the London Clinic (2008) 123 Con LR 15 at 38 [47], per Akenhead J. 97 Amec Civil Engineering Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport [2004] EWHC 2339 (TCC) at [68.7], per Jackson J (affirmed [2005] 1 WLR 2339). 98 VGC Construction Ltd v Jackson Civil Engineering Ltd (2008) 120 Con LR 178 at 195 [52], per Akenhead J. 99 Beck Peppiatt Ltd v Norwest Holst Construction Ltd [2003] BLR 316 at 320 [15], per Forbes J. The express rejection of a claim is not, however, necessary in order for there to be a dispute: Lee v Chartered Properties (Building) Ltd [2010] BLR 500 at 505-506 [19], per Akenhead J. 100 Hayter v Nelson & Home Insurance Co [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 265 at 268, per Saville J; Midland Expressway Ltd v Carillion Construction Ltd [2006] BLR 325 at 341 [92], per Jackson J. See also ISG Construction Ltd v Seevic College [2014] EWHC 4007 (TCC) at [34]–[41], per Edwards-Stuart J. 101 Sindall Ltd v Solland (2001) 80 Con LR 152 at [15], per HHJ LLoyd QC; Beck Peppiatt Ltd v Norwest Holst Construction Ltd [2003] BLR 316 at 318 [4] and 321 [20], per Forbes J; Amec Civil Engineering Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport [2004] EWHC 2339 (TCC) at [68], per Jackson J (affirmed [2005] 1 WLR 2668); Collins (Contractors) Ltd v Baltic Quay Management (1994) Ltd [2005] BLR 63 at 73-74 [61]–[65], per Clarke LJ; Bovis Lend Lease Ltd v Trustees of the London Clinic (2008) 123 Con LR 15 at 35 [40]–36 [41], per Akenhead J; PT Building Services Ltd v ROK Build Ltd [2008] EWHC 3434 (TCC) at [47], per Ramsey J. See also London and Amsterdam Properties Ltd v Waterman Partnership Ltd [2004] BLR
not being accepted, and therefore disputed.
