UK: Know Your Position: An Overview of the Role of the Certifier

Last Updated: 19 July 2018
Article by Claire King

Certifiers hold a key role in construction contracts. Certificates, statements and decisions issued by certifiers – whose titles include Contract Administrator, Employer's Agent, Project Manager, Engineer and Architect to name a few – can have a huge impact on cash flow.  Their actions can also provide a recipe for disputes where the certifier is viewed as, or is, one-sided or biased. In this Insight we review the basic laws governing certification and what can be done when something goes wrong in the process. 

What is a certificate?

Hudson's Building and Engineering Contracts  defines a certificate as:

"the expression in a definite form of the exercise of the opinion of the certifier in relation to some matter provided for by the terms of the contract".1

Essentially it is a formal decision or approval which determines an entitlement to payment or relief of some sort.2 Certificate in the context of this article includes decisions and notices (which may not be called certificates) which have a contractual effect in determining rights and obligations under a construction contract.3

A wide variety of certificates4 are found in construction contracts. Key types include:

  1. Interim certificates which determine what is payable as the contract progresses. These effectively include judgments as to the progress of the works, quality as well as the value of the works as a whole;
  2. Sectional and practical completion certificates confirming that an element or the works as a whole are complete;
  3. Extension of time certificates if a contractor or subcontractor has been delayed;
  4. Certificates of non-completion where a completion date has been missed which may result in liquidated damages being levied;
  5. Final certificates confirming that defects found within the defects liability period have been rectified and that the retention can be released;

Who can certify?

The construction contract will lay down who has a certifying role within the contract. Across different types of construction contracts the certifier may have different names. In the NEC forms the role sits with the Project Manager whilst in FIDIC forms it is the Engineer who occupies the role. The JCT Design and Build forms have an Employer's Agent whilst their Standard Building Contract has a Contract Administrator.

One question that comes up occasionally, is whether the Employer can substitute himself (or an employee) into a certifying role if he gets rid of the certifier or for some reason they become unavailable. In the recent case of Imperial Chemical Industries v Merit Merrell Technology Limited5 the Employer had tried to substitute their own employee as the Project Manager. The original Project Manager had quit following the Employer's decision to limit some of their powers.

Mr Justice Fraser rejected the notion that an employee of the Employer could be used to fulfil the Project Manager's role. He held:

"134. It is contrary to the whole way in which the contractual mechanism is structured, and intended to work, to have the employer seek to appoint itself  (or one of its employees, or an employee of its parent) as the decision maker. As Scheldebouw makes clear, 'the whole structure of the . . . contract is built upon the premise' that the employer and the decision maker are separate entities, and 'endless anomalies arise if the employer and the [decision maker] become one and the same'. It can be seen that, so far as the alternative argument put forward by the employer concerning contractual termination is concerned, the giving of notices under the termination procedures in clause 91 of the contract are required to be given by the Project Manager, not by the employer. If the employer and the Project Manager are the same entity, then notices would be coming from the employer in reality, but dressed up as though they were from the Project Manager, and notification(s) would be given by the employer (as though it were the Project Manager) to itself. This is not how the contract is designed to work, either by intention, or indeed by its terms. 

In my judgment, one need go no further than the reasons in Scheldebouw at [45](1), (2) and (3) to conclude that the arguments by MMT on this point are plainly to be preferred. Such a situation is so unusual that an express term is required. There is no such express term here. The situation which ICI sought to impose upon MMT by appointing Mr Boerboom as the Project Manager was fundamentally different to that for which MMT tendered, and contracted. This is the case even though Mr Boerboom was formally employed by AkzoNobel and not ICI. AkzoNobel was and is the parent company of ICI, and he was acting as the project manager for ICI prior to his purported 'appointment'as the Project Manager. He was the very opposite of independent on the facts of this case." [Emphasis added]

So express words would be required if an employer wanted to substitute themselves as Project Manager. This is due to the duty of independence a certifier owes when fulfilling that function (as to which see further below).  Obviously, it would then be up to the Contractor to decide whether it would be sensible to accept such wording.  

The right to delegate a certification role is also limited. Whilst the detailed preparation work for certificates may be delegated, ultimately a certifier will have to exercise their own independent judgment. A certifier cannot therefore delegate the whole function of certifying.6

What powers does a certifier have?

The powers given to a certifier are determined by the terms of the contract under which he is required to act.7 A certifier therefore needs to ensure that they don't purport to make a decision on an issue that is not within their remit. Likewise if there is a time limit for reaching a decision then this will need to be adhered to. 

In Penwith DC v VP Developments Ltd8 HHLJ Lloyd stated:

"Clearly a certifier or any other decision-maker must have the necessary contractual authority to act for otherwise the certificate or decision will be invalid. If the person has gone outside the limits of the decision-making authority conferred by the contract, ie the person does not have the power or jurisdiction to make the decision or to issue the certificate, the certificate or decision will be unenforceable and will be liable to be set aside. The parties may of course agree to accept the act and in effect to ratify it and if only one party is affected that party may elect to waive its rights not to be bound by it and, by waiver or otherwise, accept the certificate or decision as valid so that it is not always useful to describe it as a 'nullity'." [Emphasis added]

As ever it is crucial to read the contract.  

General duties of certifiers

So what are the general duties of certifiers? Perhaps the best description of the duties owed by a certifier is given by Jackson J as he then was in Scheldebouw BV v St James Homes (Grosvenor Dock) Limited9:

""34 Let me now draw the threads together. In many forms of building contract a professional person retained by the employer, and sometimes a professional person directly employed by the employer, has decision-making functions allocated to him. I will call that person 'the decision-maker'. The decisions which he makes are often required to be in the form of certificates, but this is not always so. For example, there are many contracts (of which the present one is an instance) in which extensions of time do not take the form of certificates.

35 Three propositions emerge from the authorities concerning the position of the decision-maker. 

(1) The precise role and duties of the decision-maker will be determined by the terms of the contract under which he is required to act. 

(2) Generally the decision-maker is not, and cannot be regarded as, independent of the employer. 

(3) When performing his decision-making function, the decision-maker is required to act in a manner which has variously been described as independent, impartial, fair and honest. These concepts are overlapping but not synonymous. They connote that the decision-maker must use his professional skills and his best endeavours to reach the right decision, as opposed to a decision which favours the interests of the employer. 

36 In my judgment, these propositions are all applicable to the construction manager in the present case. The fact that the construction manager acts in conjunction with other professionals when performing his decision-making function does not water down his legal duty. When performing that function, it is the construction manager's duty to act in a manner which is independent, impartial, fair and honest. In other words, he must use his professional skills and his best endeavours to reach the right decision, as opposed to a decision which favours the interests of the employer."

What is clear is that when it comes to the certifier carrying out their decision-making process (as opposed to the rest of the time) they have to act independently and impartially. They cannot favour the employer or act as the agent of the owner.

Grounds on which a certificate may be attacked

So bearing this in mind, what are the key ways in which a certificate may be attacked on the grounds of the certifier's behaviour (as opposed to the underlying content of the decision or certificate)? They include:

  1. Fraud, collusion or dishonesty;
  2. Lack of independence;10
  3. Interference by the employer;
  4. Unknown interests of the certifier;
  5. Mistakes (in limited circumstances); and
  6. Gross negligence. 

Fraud, collusion or dishonesty

Fraud, collusion or dishonesty will disqualify the certifier and invalidate the certificate.11 You would perhaps assume that a clause attempting to say otherwise would be void for public policy reasons. However, in the case of Tullis v Jackson  the clause was upheld as effective between the owner and the contractor although the certifier could still be liable for his fraud.12 As stated in Construction Law  this "should be regarded as a shaky authority" at best.13 Any attempt to include a similar provision should obviously be resisted!

Lack of independence

A failure to certify independently may also lead to disqualification. In the famous House of Lords case, Hickman v Roberts,14 the certifier improperly delayed issuing his certificate. He advised that:

"Had you better call and see my clients, because in the face of their instructions to me I cannot issue a certificate, whatever my own private opinion in the matter."

It was held that the architect "had not present to his mind, and did not act upon, that need for judicial independence that is requisite for any one in his position . . .". As a result the building owner could not use the lack of the certificate as a ground for dismissing the action for payment.

A similar type of incident was seen in the case of Costain v Bechtel.15 In that case Bechtel staff (Bechtel being the Project Manager) were told to exercise their functions under the contract in the interests of the employer and not impartially.16 Whilst an injunction was not granted it was held that the Project Manager did have a duty of impartiality in carrying out their duties which had, arguably, been breached.

Interference by the employer

Although in some ways a subcategory of "lack of independence", undue pressure and interference by the employer in certification will also potentially invalidate a certificate. In Hickman v Roberts the employer crossed the line in refusing to allow the certificate to be issued. However, the line between normal communication, information exchange and undue interference may be difficult to draw in borderline cases. 

Unknown interests

A certifier will also be disqualified if they have an unknown interest which may influence their role.17 In Kimberley v Dick18 an architect entered into an undertaking with his employer that a house should be erected for a sum not exceeding £15,000, including architect's commission and all expenses.  A builder was then engaged who, without being informed of the undertaking, gave an estimate based on quantities given him by the architect, and entered into a contract with the employer for the completion of the work from the architect's plans, and under his superintendence, for £13,690.  The architect had the power to order extra works and a clause provided that all questions between the parties under the contract should be settled by the award of the architect.

It was held that, on the evidence, the architect was the agent of the employer; that his undertaking having been concealed from the builder, the clause in the contract regarding the architect's decision was not enforceable. 

In contracts, if the architect or certifier has known interests at the time of entering the contract these will not disqualify the decision maker. So an architect can report on costs to the employer during the course of the works. 


A mistake will not normally invalidate a certificate even where it is an obvious one.19 In Cantrell v Wright & Fuller Ltd,20 it was held that:

"an error or departure from the contractual requirements in a certificate will only invalidate the certificate if its nature or effect is such that it is no longer clearly and unambiguously the required certificate in form, substance or intent if, applying an objective standard, the error does not mislead or does not have the potential of misleading either of the parties to whom it is addressed as to its form, substance or intent."

Whether a certifier is empowered to correct his certificate will depend on the wording of the contract. The lack of such a power is likely to matter less for an interim certificate than it will for a final certificate. 

Gross negligence

A certificate can be attacked (even where it is said to be final and binding otherwise) if the certifier has been grossly negligent in issuing it. This is more than just negligence. As stated in Construction Contracts:21

"It refers to the contract administrator going well beyond what the contract envisaged him doing, so as to have acted beyond the powers conferred by the contract. This could occur, for example, if a construction contract required the contractor to build a three-storey building, and the contract administrator certified practical completion as having been achieved when only two of the three floors had been constructed."


Remedies are available where a certifier acts in bad faith (including in a biased fashion or under the undue influence of the employer), fraudulently or with gross negligence. Indeed, in such cases the common law provides remedies even in circumstances where the certificate may otherwise be final and binding on the parties. For those acting as a certifier it is always worth remembering the importance of acting independently and impartially when carrying out a certification function. The role in this sense is an odd one, particularly given that the employer will be paying the bills, but in order to ensure the smooth functioning of construction contracts it is crucial that a certifier remembers these duties whenever they put on their certification hat.

With thanks to Laura Bowler for her research and assistance

  • 1. See Robert Clay and Nicholas Dennys, QC, Hudson's Building and Engineering Contracts, 13th edition (2017, Sweet and Maxwell), ch. 4 – Certificates and Defects, paragraph 4-001 ("Hudson").
  • 2. See also the definition in Ben Patten QC and Hugh Saunders, Professional Negligence in Construction, 2nd edition (2018, Routledge), p. 103.
  • 3. See also Julian Bailey, Construction Law (Informa law, 2016), vol. 1, ch. 5.98 for a concise definition of certificate.
  • 4. As stated in Hudson, chapter 4-001: "It should be noted that the law on certificates is also relevant to other decisions or statements which may in substance be similar to a certificate."
  • 5. [2017] EWHC 1763 (TCC).
  • 6. See Stephen Furst and The Hon. Sir Vivian Ramsey, Keating on Construction Contracts, 10th edition (2018, Sweet and Maxwell), ch. 5-056, Delegation of Duties. See also Clemence v Clarke (1880) in H.B.C. 4th edition, vol. 2, paras 54 and 59.
  • 7. Jackson J in Scheldebouw BV v St James Homes (Grosvenor Dock) Ltd [2006] EWHC 89 (TCC).
  • 8. [1999] EWHC Tech 231 at [17].
  • 9. [2006] EWHC 89 (TCC).
  • 10. Categories 2, 3 and 4 can all be seen as categories within an overall heading of "bad faith". See Bailey, Construction Law, ch. 5.142, Vol. 1.
  • 11. Sharpe v San Paulo Railway (1873) L.R. 8 Ch. App, 597.
  • 12. See Keating on Construction Contracts, ch. 5-064; see also Tullis v Jackson (1892) 3 Ch. 441.
  • 13. See Bailey, Construction Law, vol. 1, ch. 5.156.
  • 14. [1913] A.C. 229.
  • 15. [2005] EWHC 1018 (TCC).
  • 16. See paragraph 35 of Costain v Bechtel [2005] EWHC 1018 (TCC).
  • 17. See Keating on Construction Contracts, ch. 5-066.
  • 18. (1871) L.R. 13 Eq. 1.
  • 19. See Bailey, Construction Contracts, vol. I, ch. 5.108. See also Toepfer v Continental Grain Co [1974] 1 Lloyd's Rep 11 at 13, per Lord Denning MR.
  • 20. [2003] BLR 412.
  • 21. See Bailey, Construction Contracts, ch. S.142.

Please click here to view previous issues of Insight

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.

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.

Claire King
In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
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
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions