Harvey Shopfitters Limited made a claim in connection with work that it had carried out for the refurbishment of 22 Cornwall Gardens, London. The work comprised residential flats owned by the Defendant, ADI Limited. Work was carried out between July 1998 and January 1999. At the end of 2000 Harvey instigated adjudication proceedings pursuant to the Act and obtained a decision awarding them approximately £173,000. Enforcement proceedings were launched, which eventually became an action by the Claimant for a sum due under the contract and alternatively for a claim for quantum meruit.

The Defendant raised a jurisdictional argument which was not decided. However, they paid into Court the sum of £207,412.18. The case then proceeded by way of re-hearing of the original dispute.

John Uff QC re-heard the dispute, in accordance with the amended pleadings. A variety of issues arose, including the basis of the contract, whether the IFC Conditions were included, whether the Claimant was entitled to reimbursement on a quantum meruit basis, whether the effect of the letter of 7th July 1998 was to absolve the Defendant from liability for breach of contract, whether the IFC terms of contract applied, whether the Claimant was estopped from claiming on a quantum meruit basis, the amount of any delay, the valuation of measured work, loss and expense, disruption and the Defendants counterclaim for culpable delay if any.

John Uff QC held that the letter of 7th July 1998 evidenced a lump sum contract, comprising the IFC terms and conditions. The letter did not absolve the Defendant from liability for breach of the contract, but the Claimant was estopped from claiming on the alternative basis of a quantum meriut as they had clearly acted as if there were a lump sum contract up until they amended their statement of claim. The amount of the final account was reviewed and decided. The contractor's failure to service notices of delay was not fatal, as Professor Uff QC allowed the Claimant's alternative claim for breach of the contract. The claim for acceleration was rejected. In respect of the Defendant's counterclaim, an amount for general damages was allowed.