Construction Law: Certificates, Cases, and Contractual Obligations

This report delves into the critical role of certificates within the realm of construction law. It elucidates the procedures for issuing certificates and the repercussions of non-compliance, emphasizing their significance in contractual agreements. The analysis includes real-world case studies, such as Daisy Black vs. Slowcoach-Dullard Limited, and Token Construction vs. Charlton Estates Limited, to illustrate the conditions under which courts assess certificate validity. The report underscores the importance of precise language, such as using the term 'certify', and clarifies the implications of invalid certificates and the possibility of re-issuance. Furthermore, it stresses the need for explicit objectives and conclusions in certification, referencing relevant project conditions and amendments within the JCT SBC/Q 2016 framework. The report concludes by highlighting the practical aspects of construction law, including the responsibilities of architects and contractors regarding project extensions and associated costs.

Running head: CONSTRUCTION LAW
Construction Law
Name of the student
Name of the university
Author note

1
CONSTRUCTION LAW
Certification is a very important procedure before beginning any working schedule. Most
people, however, are not aware of the details of issuing a certificate. This article will help us
understand through various cases and incidents how to issue a certificate and the consequences if
one does not. It also helps us understand the various situations where one might need to issue a
certificate and the conditions under which the courts consider it valid. Certificates are extremely
significant for any contract, this article will show us how.
Construction contract certificates are used to mark important events by independent third parties,
like the certification of completing all parts of a given work, providing additional time, requiring
correction of imperfections etc. In a lot of cases it is used to bring about further affairs, like the
interim or absolute salary of the employer. Certification is thus not only important in building
contracts, but also in the relation of one’s salary. Since the certificates arise from definitive
contract details, the validity of the same maybe subjected to challenges if the rightful needs of
certification is unfollowed in any case.
In a particular case, Builder, Daisy (‘LackaDaisy’) Black, towards the decided finalization date,
decided to print an affidavit of non-actualization to the employer, Slowcoach- Dullard Limited
(S-DL), obeyingamendment 2.31 of JCT SBC/Q 2016. A letter without any date was issued by
the Daisy Black to the employer’s MD minus referring to any contract clauses insinuating the
chances of amendsbeing reduced from the overall cost. Dispute followed questioning if and to
which level (if at all) of discharged and detectedbreakages are compensated. S-DL argued Daisy
Black’s document was missing a non-actualization certificate obeying JCT SBC/Q 2016 since it
is deprived of the required arrangement, body and purpose. The employers reverted by citing the
Halliday Construction Limited and others vs. Gowrie Housing Association Limited case which
was similar to this and after some initial friction, the documents were held lawful by the judge.

2
CONSTRUCTION LAW
Unlike the previous one, in Token Construction vs. Charlton Estates Limited in 1973, 1B.L.R.
48, the relevance of a document as an affidavit was inconclusive and hence not held valid in the
court1. It is hence, advised for the endorser always use the term ‘certify’ or ascribe to the
document as ‘certificate’, so all confusions can be done away with. Minor issues are usually
ignored if the substance of the affidavit is concrete and neither parties have ever suffered
negative consequences cause of that. Invalid certificates can be re-issued maintaining the same
substance unless specifically permitted to make modifications2.
Though the architect’s document didn’t confirm the norms to be a lawful certificate and the
contractor was justified partially, the contractor being authorized to any delay or excess cost will
be reason the Contractor is responsible for the venture extensions. Here, the architect can re-issue
a proper certificate, referring to JCT SBC/Q 2016 amendments affirming the neglect of the
employer and penalty for the same. The aim and conclusion of certification must be made
explicit with reference to applicatory conditions of the project.
1 Token Construction vs. Charlton Estates Limited in 1973, 1B.L.R. 48
2 Kiu May Construction Co. Ltd. v. Wai Cheong Co. Ltd. and Another (1983) 29 B.L.R. 137

3
CONSTRUCTION LAW
Bibliography
Gerber, P. and Ong, B.J., 2014. Best Practice in Construction Disputes.
Hughes, W., Champion, R. and Murdoch, J., 2015. Construction contracts: law and
management. Routledge.
Kiu May Construction Co. Ltd. v. Wai Cheong Co. Ltd. and Another (1983) 29 B.L.R. 137
Mason, J., 2016. Construction law: From beginner to practitioner. Routledge.
Ter Haar, R., 2017. Remedies in construction law. Taylor & Francis.