Specialists International
This Knowledge Check tests your understanding of the decision of the Technology and Construction Court in Oakland Wantage Care Home Limited v Stepnell Limited [2026] EWHC 1530 (TCC). The court had to decide which of two documents was the contractor's Final Statement under clause 4.24 of a JCT Design and Build Contract, and whether correspondence sent before a Final Statement exists can amount to a notice of dispute stopping the statement becoming conclusive. Both questions matter to anyone administering JCT final accounts.
By a contract dated 9 August 2019 on the JCT Design and Build Contract 2016 with bespoke Special Conditions, Oakland engaged Stepnell to design and build a 65 bed care home at Grove Road, Wantage. Practical completion was certified on 26 April 2021. Stepnell emailed a final account document on 17 February 2022 showing GBP 8,547,434.96; the employer's agent responded in March 2022, finding a figure of GBP 7,988,593.74 excluding VAT. A further statement followed on 9 February 2024, an adjudicator decided that the 2024 document was the relevant statement and that no Final Payment Notice or Pay Less Notice had answered it, and Oakland paid on 29 May 2024 before issuing this Part 8 claim. Jonathan Acton Davis KC heard the claim on 9 June 2026.
The judgment applies the objective notice-construction principles collected in Advance JV v Enisca Limited, and the conclusivity guidance in Brighton University v Dovehouse Interiors Ltd, Trustees of the Marc Gilbard 2009 Settlement Trust v OD Developments and Projects and Battersea Project Phase 2 Development v QFS Scaffolding Limited. Oakland failed on both issues: the February 2022 document was a draft, not the Final Statement, and pre-statement correspondence cannot be a clause 4.24.6 notice of dispute.
- The parties, the care home project and the JCT Design and Build Contract 2016
- The final account chronology from practical completion to the 2024 adjudication
- The clause 4.24 Final Statement machinery and the due date for the final payment
- The conclusive evidence effects in clause 1.8 and their suspension
- The objective reasonable recipient test from Advance JV v Enisca
- The arguments for and against the February 2022 document being the Final Statement
- Why the adjudicator's view and the parties' subjective understanding were rejected as touchstones
- The conclusivity authorities and their commercial purpose
- Whether notice of dispute can precede the Final Statement
- The outcome on both issues and the relief refused