Deerns UK Limited v VDC LHR11 Limited [2026] EWHC 1509 (TCC)

SCCSI

(Providing Elite Certification Programmes to Construction Professionals Since 2009)

Explore Our Construction Claims and Contracts Certification Programmes

Presented by

Society of Construction Claims
Specialists International

sccsinternational.org

Deerns UK Limited v VDC LHR11 Limited

[2026] EWHC 1509 (TCC) | Technology and Construction Court, London

Before Mr Justice Eyre | Heard 5 June 2026 | Handed down 23 June 2026

Knowledge Check

The Final Date for Payment under Section 110: Test Your Knowledge

This Knowledge Check tests your understanding of the decision of the Technology and Construction Court in Deerns UK Limited v VDC LHR11 Limited [2026] EWHC 1509 (TCC). The court had to decide whether a consultancy agreement which allowed a late payment application to push back the final date for payment complied with section 110(1)(b) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. The judgment matters to anyone who drafts or administers payment terms, because a non-compliant final date lets the Scheme for Construction Contracts in and can leave pay less notices out of time.

By a consultancy agreement dated 23 April 2025, VDC LHR11 Limited engaged Deerns UK Limited as Consultant to provide engineering consultancy services for a development at Chandos Park Estate, London NW10. Deerns claimed GBP 910,501.71 plus VAT under payment applications 7 and 8, with due dates of 4 February 2026 and 6 March 2026, contending that VDC's pay less notices of 27 February and 25 March were served after the deadlines fixed by the Scheme. The claim came before Mr Justice Eyre under CPR Part 8 and was heard on 5 June 2026.

The judgment applies sections 109 to 111 of the 1996 Act and paragraph 8 of the Scheme, follows the line of authority in Rochford Construction Ltd v Kilhan Construction Ltd and Lidl Great Britain Ltd v Closed Circuit Cooling Ltd, and considers Bennett (Construction) Ltd v CIMC MBS Ltd on the piecemeal application of the Scheme, the principles of estoppel by convention in Mears Ltd v Shoreline Housing Partnership Ltd, and the stay principles in Wimbledon Construction Company 2000 Ltd v Vago. The court held that the Contract did not provide a compliant final date for payment, that the Scheme's 17 day period applied, and that judgment be entered for the Consultant in the amounts claimed.

This Knowledge Check covers

The parties, the consultancy agreement and the Chandos Park Estate development
The payment terms in clause 7.2 and the pay less notice regime in clause 7.3
Payment applications 7 and 8, the due dates and the dates the notices were served
The requirements of sections 109 to 111 of the 1996 Act and paragraph 8 of the Scheme
The principle in Rochford and Lidl on fixing the final date for payment
Events before and after the due date and their effect on statutory compliance
The interpretation of clause 7.2, Schedule 1 and the Schedule of Valuation Dates
The estoppel by convention argument and its suitability for Part 8 determination
Why the court could not restore the parties' intended 30 day interval
The stay of execution principles and the final outcome

Choose your Knowledge Check mode

Legal Disclaimer

This Knowledge Check is provided for educational and professional development purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The content reflects interpretations and analyses that may not apply to specific circumstances. Contract interpretation depends on specific wording, jurisdiction, and factual context. Always consult qualified legal professionals before making decisions based on this content. SCCSI and its contributors accept no liability for reliance on this material.