This case concerns the application of the payment mechanisms in the Act and the Scheme in respect of the building contract. The pursuer, Maxi Construction, contended that they were entitled to an interim payment in respect of "Application Number 10", and that the defenders, Mortons, had no relevant defence. There was some debate about which terms had been incorporated into the contract, but ultimately the decision turned upon the nature of the contractor's submission for payment, which the judge characterised as a request for the employer's agent to value the work, rather than an application for payment.

Lord MacFadyen held that the application by the contractor did not amount to a claim under the Scheme because: 1. it was an application for agreement of the contractor's valuation, and not a claim for payment at all, and 2. it did not, in any event, comply with the requirement of paragraph 12 of the Scheme as it did not specify the basis on which it had been calculated.