If works combine work relating to a dwelling
with other works, the works may not "principally" relate to a
dwelling, and be caught by the Act. A residential occupier does not
have to be in occupation at the time of the contract, nor does the
building have to be a dwelling at that time.
HHJ Overend, Exeter District Registry
28 January 2000
J&B, a partnership formed by a husband and
wife, purchased four barns in Devon. It intended to convert two of
them, one for itself, and the other for sale. It engaged S to carry
out building works.
Disputes arose as S said that he had not been fully
paid, and J&B claimed S was in delay. S terminated the
contract, and asked for an adjudicator to be appointed. J&B
said that the contract was one with a residential occupier, and
therefore there was no right to adjudicate implied. The adjudicator
decided to continue with the adjudication and awarded sums to S. S
applied to court to enforce that decision.
The court had to determine two questions. The first
was whether the work was "on a dwelling." Second, was the contract
an agreement that principally related to a dwelling.
The Court said that the residential occupier does
not have to be in occupation for the contract to be one with a
residential occupier. It was irrelevant that the barn was not a
dwelling at the time of the contract, since it was at some stage to
become a dwelling. However, the work was not "principally" relating
to a dwelling. The works also concerned the barn to be sold, plus
works on a garage block, a courtyard and drainage. It was not
possible to say that work principally related to a dwelling, and
therefore the contract was not exempt from the Act.
If works combine work relating to a dwelling with
other works, the works may not "principally" relate to a dwelling,
and be caught by the Act. A residential occupier does not have to
be in occupation at the time of the contract, nor does the building
have to be a dwelling at that time.