FINAL CERTIFICATES, PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND LIMITATION PERIODS

Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council v Barlow Securities Group Services Ltd ([2001] BLR 113)

In Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council v Barlow Securities Group Services Ltd [2001] BLR 113 the Court of Appeal held that an employer was not estopped from denying that a final certificate had been issued with the result that it was entitled to bring a claim in respect of alleged defects in the houses constructed by the contractors (to the extent that these claims were not time-barred). It is an essential ingredient of promissory estoppel that the express or implied promise or representation be clear and unequivocal. On the facts there was no such clear and unequivocal representation by the employer. The judge and the parties had failed to appreciate the dual significance of the final certificate, in that it certifies the final balance due and it is also evidence that the materials and the workmanship are to the reasonable satisfaction of the architect. While the parties had reached agreement in relation to the final balance, they had not reached agreement in relation to liability for defects and, in particular, the employer had not represented that it would forego any claim it might have in respect of the quality of materials or standards of workmanship.