[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-279462-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":81,"doc-detail-279462-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","payment-and-pay-less-notices-tcc-decision-on-drylining-dispute","Payment and Pay Less Notices - TCC Decision on Drylining Dispute","","Payment and Pay Less Notices are central to cash-flow certainty under the Housing Grants, Construction & Regeneration Act 1996, with strict procedural requirements governed by sections 110A and 110B. A TCC decision in Vision Construct Ltd v Gypcraft Drylining Contractors Ltd highlights that late or incorrectly served notices can trigger the full “notified sum” by default. The ruling also addresses whether contractual payment mechanisms are “adequate” and whether estoppel can override statutory deadlines, rejecting attempts to sidestep compliance.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/","Template",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/","Letters",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/payment-and-pay-less-notices-tcc-decision-on-drylining-dispute/279462/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/payment-and-pay-less-notices-tcc-decision-on-drylining-dispute/279462.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Sage","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-30","2026-09-16",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",11,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What is the practical impact of missing deadlines for Payment Notices and Pay Less Notices?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"Missing the contractual deadline or serving the notice incorrectly can result in the full claimed sum becoming the “notified sum” by default, leading to judgment regardless of the substance of what is owed.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"How did the court assess whether the subcontract’s payment mechanism was “adequate”?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The court held the mechanism was adequate even though the schedule used “Sub-Contractor Submission Valuation Date” instead of the standard JCT “Interim Valuation Date,” because the wording divergence did not invalidate a commercially workable process.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"Why was estoppel by convention rejected in this dispute?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The court found no clear shared assumption or representation that late notices would be accepted, no established convention, and no sufficient evidence of reliance; it also considered the required factual enquiry unsuitable for Part 8 proceedings.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},279462,1790440604,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,93,98,103,108,113,117,122],{"id":55,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":89,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":90,"show_sort_weight":91,"slug":92},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":94,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":95,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":97},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":99,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":100,"show_sort_weight":101,"slug":102},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":104,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":105,"show_sort_weight":106,"slug":107},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":109,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":110,"show_sort_weight":111,"slug":112},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":114,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":115,"slug":116},18,30,"letters",{"id":118,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":119,"show_sort_weight":120,"slug":121},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":123,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":125},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":127},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":128,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":22,"category_id":114,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":33,"language":135,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":136,"faqs":137,"seo_title":138,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":139,"read_time":26},687197207057,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_29158cc5080c5b710cf443261637dec0","Payment and Pay Less Notices: TCC brings Vision to Drylining dispute  \nNOVEMBER 11, 2025  \nIn the world of construction contracts, cash-flow is paramount and so too is strict adherence to the procedural framework governing Payment Notices and Pay Less Notices. The Housing Grants, Construction & Regeneration Act 1996 (as amended) (‘the Construction Act’) and the accompanying scheme regulations, lie at the core of determining a contractor’s or subcontractor’s entitlement to receive or withhold payment.  \nIn practical terms, issuing the correct Payment Notice at the right time (under section 110A) and/or a Pay Less Notice (under section 110B) can mean the difference between getting paid on time, and having the full claimed sum automatically become the “notified sum” by default. Miss the deadline, label the notice incorrectly or rely on informal course of previous dealings, and you may find yourself on the wrong end of a judgment regardless of the substance of what you say you’re owed.  \nThe recent Technology & Construction Court decision in Vision Construct Ltd v Gypcraft Drylining Contractors Ltd [2025] EWHC 2707 (TCC) (21 October 2025) is a good reminder of how strictly the clock and the form operate in this space.  \nIn my experience, issues with Notices are still common, and Vision provides evidence of this: Contractors and subcontractors misunderstand the strict requirements and deadlines under the Construction Act, often only discovering problems when it is too late. Ensuring a clear understanding of the notice regime from the outset is therefore critical. Taking the time to confirm what constitutes a valid Payment or Pay Less Notice, and adhering precisely to the prescribed timelines, can prevent disputes and protect cash flow before deadlines expire.  \nThe facts  \nThe main contractor, Vision Construct Ltd (“VCL”), engaged the subcontractor, Gypcraft Drylining Contractors Ltd (“Gypcraft”) under a subcontract dated 12 November 2020 (“the Sub-Contract”) . The Sub-Contract incorporated the JCT DBSub/C 2016 form and included a bespoke “Payments Schedule”(for years 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24) listing for each payment cycle: a “Sub-Contractor Submission Valuation Date”, a “due date”, last date for Payment Notice, last date for Pay Less Notice, and final date for payment.  \nGypcraft submitted Interim Payment Application No. 23 in January 2023 (for the cycle with Valuation Date 16 January 2023) for £342,385.52 . VCL issued a document on 7 February 2023 headed“Payment Notice” for only £125,437.77, paying only part of the claimed sum. However, the Payment Notice was issued 5 days late (after the contractual deadline/Payment Notice window) and no  \nseparate Pay Less Notice was served. Gypcraft adjudicated in Nov 2024. The adjudicator found Gypcraft was entitled to the full notified sum because VCL had failed to serve a valid Payment Notice or Pay Less Notice in time, under section 110B(4) of the Construction Act.  \nVCL then brought Part 8 proceedings seeking declarations on:  \n1. Whether the payment mechanism under the Sub-Contract was “adequate”(so that the statutory scheme did not apply) .  \n2. Whether VCL could rely on estoppel by convention (because past late Payment Notices had been accepted) to avoid strict compliance.  \n3. Whether the late “Payment Notice” issued could instead be treated as a valid “Pay Less Notice”.  \n2. Key legal issues and court’s findings  \nThe key issues for the court were therefore:  \n(i) Adequacy of the payment mechanism  \nVCL argued that the Sub-Contract did not contain an adequate mechanism for contractual interim payments (because the Schedule used the term “Sub-Contractor Submission Valuation Date” rather than the JCT term “Interim Valuation Date”), and therefore the statutory scheme applied. Deputy Judge Williamson KC held the payment mechanism (despite using “Sub-Contractor Submission Valuation Date” rather than exactly “Interim Valuation Date”) was adequate under s 110 of the Construction Act. The judge fou","cbCaipupsrPcgv1z","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaipupsrPcgv1z","pdf",159259,"English","# Key legal issues and court’s findings\n## Adequacy of the payment mechanism\n## Estoppel by convention\n## Treatment of the late Payment Notice","[{\"question\":\"What is the practical impact of missing deadlines for Payment Notices and Pay Less Notices?\",\"answer\":\"Missing the contractual deadline or serving the notice incorrectly can result in the full claimed sum becoming the “notified sum” by default, leading to judgment regardless of the substance of what is owed.\"},{\"question\":\"How did the court assess whether the subcontract’s payment mechanism was “adequate”?\",\"answer\":\"The court held the mechanism was adequate even though the schedule used “Sub-Contractor Submission Valuation Date” instead of the standard JCT “Interim Valuation Date,” because the wording divergence did not invalidate a commercially workable process.\"},{\"question\":\"Why was estoppel by convention rejected in this dispute?\",\"answer\":\"The court found no clear shared assumption or representation that late notices would be accepted, no established convention, and no sufficient evidence of reliance; it also considered the required factual enquiry unsuitable for Part 8 proceedings.\"}]","Payment and Pay Less Notices - TCC Decision on Drylining Dispute | PDF",1789521030]