- with readers working within the Construction & Engineering industries
- within Transport, Employment and HR and Antitrust/Competition Law topic(s)
- with Inhouse Counsel
The Supreme Court has held that a contractor cannot terminate its employment under the industry-wide standard form construction contract for a repeated default (such as late payment) where the right to give a termination notice for the original default had not previously accrued: Providence Building Services Limited v Hexagon Housing Association Limited [2026] UKSC 1.
As well as the specific implications for those in the construction industry, the decision is of interest more generally for the Supreme Court's guidance on the interpretation of industry-wide standard form contracts which have been negotiated by representatives of contracting parties in a particular trade or industry. In particular, while the usual approach to contract interpretation applies:
- Historical judicial treatment and practice in relation to clauses in an earlier version of a standard form may be included as admissible background context, for example if it is clear that the standard form has been amended so as to depart from a court decision. However, the "archaeology of the forms" should generally be discouraged, as it is akin to referring to previous drafts of a contract, which is not a proper aid to construction.
- Where parties choose to use an industry-wide standard form, it can generally be taken that their objective intentions in the relevant context are that their respective rights and obligations should be consistent with those of other parties using the same form, and should reflect the objective intentions of those who were concerned with the drawing up of that standard form agreement.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
