UK: PFI subcontracts: doubt cast on effectiveness of Equivalent Project Relief clauses

Last Updated: 12 January 2006
Article by Susan Booth, Trevor Butcher and Paul Smith

The recent case of Midland Expressway Limited -v- Carillion Construction Limited & Ors [2005] EWHC 2963 (TCC) has cast doubt on the effectiveness of equivalent project relief clauses in PFI subcontracts. The case, which arose out of the construction of the M6 toll road, has implications for project companies and their funders and investors in the PFI industry.

The issue arises due to the applicability of the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 to construction contracts and the potential mismatch between the needs of investors and funders to a project company with the provisions of the Act.

The outcome of this case will cause waves in the PFI industry. We expect that interested parties will be reviewing equivalent project relief clauses in both signed deals and those approaching close. Funders and investors will be looking to minimise any potential risk to the project company and if it is thought that these clauses could fail then they and their advisers will be looking for alternative ways to deal with the potential risk and these alternatives are discussed. The risk may well be higher in consortia that are not sponsor-led.

Given the Government's PFI-friendly stance, changes may have to be made to policy in the arena of PFI subcontracts and the resolution of disputes which involve the contracting authority and the various parties in the project company's contractual chain.

To view the article in full, please see below:

Full Article


For some time practitioners in the field of PFI have grappled with the issues arising from the application of the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (referred to as the ‘Act’) to subcontracts in PFI projects (typically the construction contracts and the FM contracts). In particular there is a potential conflict between the needs of investors and funders to keep the project company whole on the one hand, (i.e. to match (both in quantum and timing) the liabilities which fall due from the project company to its subcontractors with the benefits which fall due to the project company from the contracting authority), and the provisions of the Act intended to promote prompt payment to subcontractors in a contractual chain on the other hand.

Issue and relevant legislation

Two points arise out of a consideration of the Act. The first is that S.108 provides that under a ‘construction contract’ as defined in the Act (which will cover a PFI construction subcontract and may cover the ‘hard’ services part of a facilities management/maintenance subcontract) either party is entitled to refer a dispute to adjudication at any time. This right cannot be excluded by contract. If a subcontractor invokes its rights under S.108 before the project company has had a chance to secure its position under the related project agreement, the project company could be exposed to costs it cannot recover. Further, there is a possibility that a decision by an adjudicator under the subcontract would be inconsistent with or conflict with a decision made pursuant to the dispute resolution procedure under the Project Agreement, again exposing the project company to a liability that it has not predicted or provided for.

The second is under S.113(1), which provides: ‘a provision making payment under a construction contract conditional on the payer receiving payment from a third person is ineffective, unless that third person, or any other person payment by whom is under the contract (directly or indirectly) a condition of payment by that third person, is insolvent’. This has become known as the prohibition of ‘pay when paid’ provisions in subcontracts.

The result is that any provision whereby a subcontract may (i) defer or limit a subcontractor’s right to go to adjudication ‘at any time', and/or (ii) provide that the subcontractor’s payment is conditional on the project company receiving payment, may be held to be unenforceable. While it has long been realised that the drafting of clauses that seek (by using any similar devices) to achieve this is beset with difficulty it was thought that clauses limiting the subcontractor’s entitlement under the subcontract to the project company’s agreed or determined equivalent entitlement (as opposed to actual payment) under the project agreement, would be effective.

The case

Midland Expressway Limited –v- Carillion Construction Limited & Ors [2005] EWHC 2963 (TCC)

The case in point was an application for an injunction brought by the project company, Midland Expressway Limited (‘MEL’) to prevent the construction subcontractors (each subsidiaries of Carillion, Alfred McAlpine, Balfour Beatty and AMEC, and referred to as ‘CAMBBA’) from pursuing a reference to adjudication under their subcontract. None of the subcontractors was an investor in the project company. The subject of the alleged dispute was the amount of the payment due to CAMBBA from MEL for a variation requested by the Secretary of State for Transport (the ‘Department’) as contracting authority to the project signed in 2000 to design, build, operate and maintain the M6 toll road near Birmingham. The variation related to the construction of the ‘tie-ins’ with the main M6 motorway at either end of the toll road.

The Department disagreed with the sum requested for variation works carried out by CAMBBA and CAMBBA instigated an adjudication against MEL for short of £10m. While the Project Agreement gave the Department the option to become a party to any dispute between MEL and CAMBBA, the Department decided on this occasion not to do so, preferring to await the result of the adjudication between MEL and CAMBBA. In its reference to adjudication, CAMBBA requested interim payment of the sum they claimed due, saying that MEL’s pursuit of its entitlement under the Project Agreement should not hold up payment to CAMBBA. Mr Justice Jackson (Technology and Construction Court) considered each of the clauses relied on by MEL to defeat CAMBBA’s claim in light of each of the relevant provisions of the Act.

S.108 (right to commence adjudication at any time)

Clause 7.1.3 of the contract between MEL and CAMBBA (the ‘D&C Contract’) limited CAMBBA’s entitlement to payment or recovery in respect of a price adjustment (such as a variation) to such time as ‘(a) an agreement has been made between the Secretary of State and MEL or a determination has otherwise been made under or in connection with the [Project Agreement] establishing that [MEL] is entitled to Equivalent Project Relief in respect of such Price Adjustment…; and (b) [MEL] has received the Price Adjustment Funds or has certified that it has funds available to it for the purposes of payment of such Price Adjustment.’

This was agreed to at best be a defence to adjudication as opposed to a bar. However clause 7.4 of the D&C Contract stated: ‘pending the determination, agreement or resolution of any Equivalent Project Relief under the [Project Agreement], [CAMBBA] shall take no steps to enforce any right, benefit or relief under this Contract to the extent that such right, benefit or relief relates to the same circumstances as those to which the Project Relief Event to which that Equivalent Project Relief relates’. Mr Justice Jackson held that there were two possibilities: first that clause 7.4 should be construed narrowly and in a manner compatible with the Act and second that the clause is contrary to the Act and thus the Scheme for Construction Contracts (which would give CAMBBA a right to go to adjudication at any time) is substituted in the place of the contractual adjudication provisions. In either case (and he did not decide which was correct) clause 7 of the D&C contract did not bar CAMBBA from pursuing its claim by adjudication.

S.113 (bar on ‘pay when paid’ provisions)

MEL relied on clause 39.6.2 of the D&C contract. It provides: ‘subject only to clause 7 (Contractor’s Rights) and notwithstanding any other provisions of this Contract, [CAMBBA]’s rights to any Price Adjustment under or in connection with clause 39 (Changes) in respect of a Secretary of State’s Change shall in no event exceed the amounts, if any, to which [MEL] is entitled to be paid by the Department in respect of a corresponding change pursuant to Clauses and of the [Project Agreement].’ Mr Justice Jackson held that the practical consequence of this clause was that CAMBBA would not be paid for variations requested by the Department unless and until MEL had received a corresponding sum from the Department, even where CAMBBA has or could show, under the D&C contract dispute resolution procedures, that it was entitled to payment or extra payment. In Mr Justice Jackson’s view, this was what S.113 of the Act was designed to legislate against. He went on to say that the use in that clause of the words ‘to which [MEL] is entitled to be paid’ did not save the clause: words used as a device to get around S.113 will not assist. He went on to say that if that analysis were incorrect then clause 39.6.2 would, when read together with clause 7.1.3 would in any case be a ‘pay when paid’ provision in all circumstances other than where MEL had certified that it had funds available to pay CAMBBA.

Effect of the judgment

The outcome of this case will clearly cause waves in the PFI industry. However there are a few points to bear in mind. The first is that the case related to payment for a variation as opposed to the payments to which the subcontractors were entitled under the project as at financial close. The latter type of payments made to a construction subcontractor during the construction phase will not fall within the ambit of any equivalent project relief-type clause as they are paid through the project company from the project’s funders on certification by the latter’s technical adviser. They are thus not the subjects of any clause in the construction subcontract that relates the subcontractor’s entitlement to a corresponding entitlement of the project company against the contracting authority. A similar analysis should, given appropriate drafting, apply to variation payments where the payment is being funded by the project company by way of an addition to its existing debt facility. Payment will be made to the construction subcontractor following certification by lender’s TA and the unitary charge adjusted.

Second the case did not concern entitlement to extensions of time or relief from termination. While it is possible that a clause limiting the construction subcontractor’s entitlement to time or relief to that agreed or determined under a project agreement could offend S.108, the ‘pay when paid’ considerations are irrelevant.

Third each case turns on its facts and the exact words of the relevant restrictions. In many of the clauses considered, the judge found wording which directly offended the Act. With different drafting the result could be different in another case. Other contractual provisions could be, and often are, included which are aimed at achieving by other means the protection for the project company that investors and funders are looking for and which facilitate the funding of these projects. Nevertheless the court’s ‘purposive’ approach to the interpretation of the Act, particularly of S.113, must cause concern.

This leads onto the issue of Government policy. Part of the problem lies with the fact that whilst the Act does apply to many of the subcontracts on a PFI project, it does not apply to the project agreement. Any proposal to disapply the Act from PFI subcontracts is unlikely to be acceptable to the construction industry. On the other hand, the Government last year rejected a proposal that the Act should be amended so that it applies to the project agreements as well as the subcontracts. Government policy has always been that the public sector should not be embroiled in every dispute between the project company and its supply chain (and that the project company should ensure that decisions flow through the contractual chain by correct structuring). However given the difficulties illustrated by this case it may be that this policy should now be reviewed. If both the subcontract and the project agreement were subject to the same dispute resolution regimes there would be much more scope for ensuring that the construction subcontractor’s entitlement would be determined at the same time as the project company’s, and by the same process.

Meanwhile investors and funders will need to review subcontract provisions in both signed deals, particularly given the recent activity in secondary market transfers, and those approaching close, in the light of this case. If it is thought that these clauses could fail then they and their advisers will be looking for alternative ways to deal with the potential risk to the project company. They may now be looking for longer periods in the sub-contracts for the project company to respond to claims. The as yet untested back-up device of parallel loan agreements may come under greater scrutiny as a potential solution. The risk of a challenge may be higher in consortia that are not sponsor-led.

This article was written for Law-Now, CMS Cameron McKenna's free online information service. To register for Law-Now, please go to

Law-Now information is for general purposes and guidance only. The information and opinions expressed in all Law-Now articles are not necessarily comprehensive and do not purport to give professional or legal advice. All Law-Now information relates to circumstances prevailing at the date of its original publication and may not have been updated to reflect subsequent developments.

The original publication date for this article was 11/01/2006.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.