Cash flow is the lifeblood of construction projects, and the statutory payment framework exists to keep it moving. The recent decision in Vision Construct Ltd v Gypcraft Drylining Contractors Ltd underscores a familiar but critical message: the timing and form of Payment Notices and Pay Less Notices are not optional technicalities. They are strict requirements, and getting them wrong can lead to significant and unintended payment liabilities.
The case is a reminder that even commercially workable payment mechanisms will not save a party that misses deadlines or tries to retrofit a non‑compliant notice into compliance after the fact.
Background
Vision Construct Ltd (“VCL”) engaged Gypcraft Drylining Contractors Ltd (“Gypcraft”) under a JCT DBSub/C 2016 subcontract incorporating a detailed payment schedule. Gypcraft submitted Interim Payment Application No. 23 in January 2023 for £342,385.52.
VCL responded with a document labelled “Payment Notice” for £125,437.77, but it was issued five days late. There was no separate Pay Less Notice.
Gypcraft commenced adjudication on a smash‑and‑grab basis. The adjudicator found that, because VCL had failed to issue a payment notice on time and there was no separate pay less notice, the full amount applied for had become the “notified sum” under the Construction Act.
VCL then issued Part 8 proceedings in court to challenge this. Its case rested on three arguments:
- the payment mechanism was inadequate, so the statutory scheme should apply;
- Gypcraft was estopped from relying on strict deadlines because late notices had been accepted before; and
- the late Payment Notice should be treated as a Pay Less Notice.
The Court rejected all three of these arguments.
1. Adequacy of the payment mechanism
VCL argued that the subcontract payment regime was defective because it used the term “Sub‑Contractor Submission Valuation Date” instead of the more familiar “Interim Valuation Date.” If true, the statutory scheme would have applied instead.
The Court disagreed. The payment schedule clearly set out the valuation date, due date, notice deadlines and final date for payment. It worked commercially and satisfied section 110 of the Construction Act.
Courts will not lightly invalidate a payment regime because of minor drafting deviations, particularly where the mechanism is clear and workable in practice.
2. Estoppel by convention
VCL next argued that a shared assumption had arisen through previous cycles where late notices had been accepted, meaning Gypcraft could not now reject a late Payment Notice. The Judge dismissed this in short order.
To establish estoppel by convention, a party must show:
- a shared assumption between the parties,
- reliance on that assumption, and
- that it would be unconscionable for the other party to depart from it.
There was no evidence of such a convention. The fact that late notices had not previously been challenged did not amount to a clear, shared understanding. Nor was there evidence of reliance. Further, the factual disputes inherent in an estoppel argument made it unsuitable for Part 8 proceedings.
Importantly, the Court stressed that equitable doctrines cannot be used to sidestep the clear statutory deadlines in the Construction Act. Cash‑flow certainty is a core legislative purpose, and courts will not dilute it through estoppel unless the evidence is very strong.
3. Attempting to reclassify a Payment Notice as a Pay Less Notice
Finally, VCL sought to re-characterise its late Payment Notice as a Pay Less Notice.
This was firmly rejected. The document:
- was expressly labelled a Payment Notice,
- was presented as such in its cover email, and
- contained the hallmarks of a Payment Notice rather than a Pay Less Notice.
Notices must make clear what they are at the time they are issued. Rebranding a non‑compliant document after the deadline would undermine the statutory regime and the contractual timetable. The Court relied on previous case law emphasising this principle, including Grove and Advance JV.
Decision
VCL’s application failed on all grounds. The adjudicator’s award in favour of Gypcraft stood, and the full value of the payment application remained payable.
Practical lessons
This case reinforces several important points for anyone administering construction contracts:
1. Use a clear and workable payment mechanism
Minor drafting inconsistencies will not invalidate a regime, but the mechanism must identify key dates and operate commercially.
2. Deadlines matter – strictly
Late Payment Notices or Pay Less Notices will almost always fail, exposing the paying party to significant financial risk.
3. Past informality is not a safety net
Accepting late notices in previous cycles does not amount to a waiver or a binding convention. Estoppel requires clear evidence and is rarely available.
4. A Payment Notice is not a Pay Less Notice
Notices must be clearly identified. You cannot retrospectively “convert” one into the other.
5. Get it right first time
The statutory rules are unforgiving. Administrative discipline, clear labelling, accurate dates, and timely service is the best protection.
Conclusion
Vision Construct v Gypcraft is a clear reminder that the Construction Act’s notice regime requires strict compliance. A workable payment mechanism will be upheld, but parties who miss deadlines or seek to rely on past informality do so at their peril. By understanding and rigorously applying the notice requirements, parties can avoid avoidable disputes and protect cash flow throughout the project lifecycle.
How CCC can help
If you would like advice on managing payment cycles, drafting compliant notice regimes, or addressing issues arising from late or invalid notices, our team can help. We work with contractors, subcontractors and employers to reduce payment risk and resolve construction disputes efficiently. Please get in touch if you would like to discuss any of the issues raised in this article.
Contact us for a free initial consultation.
