Peabody ruling on construction disputes: Why the date of loss matters more than the insolvency date

In the recent High Court decision of Peabody Trust v National House Building Council, the court clarified the point at which the limitation period for insurance disputes begins for the purpose of bringing a claim. Deputy Judge Andrew Mitchell KC held that the limitation period starts when the claimant incurs the insured loss, rather than from the date of the contractor’s insolvency. This judgment redefines the limitation period for claims, highlighting that the limitation period is driven by the occurrence of actual loss rather than the insolvency date of the responsible party.

This distinction has significant implications to construction disputes that involve insolvency. Contractors, insurers, and developers should carefully assess the timing of claims to ensure that they are made at the right time, guided by when the financial impact of insolvency materialises.

The Facts

Peabody engaged the services of Vantage Design & Build Limited (“Vantage”) on 20 November 2015 to assist with the design and construction of 175 dwellings, including 88 affordable units (together known as the “Project”). However, on 17 June 2016, Vantage ceased work on the Project and subsequently entered administration on 29 June 2016. Following which Peabody contacted a further company to complete the construction of the 88 affordable units at an additional cost.

Peabody however had insured against such a risk and had agreed a contract with National House Building Council (NHBC). The insurance policy provided “Insolvency cover before practical completion” which included insurance should Peabody have to pay more to complete the units because of Vantage’s insolvency.

Peabody sought to recover the additional sums incurred as a result of Vantage entering administration. NHCB however asserted that the limitation period for Peabody to bring such a claim had since passed (six years from the date of Vantage’s insolvency) so applied to strike out Peabody’s claim by way of a summary judgment application.

The wording of the insurance policy stated that cover was applicable when “you have to pay more to complete the building of the home(s), because the contractor is insolvent”.

Accordingly, Peabody understood that the cause of action did not accrue on the date of Vantage’s insolvency but at some point, afterwards, when they were required to complete the project.

Judgment

The judge held in favour of Peabody rejecting the Summary Judgment application. The judge held that the time did not start running on the insolvency of Vantage on 29 June 2016 but at a time (to be determined at trial) when Peabody had to pay more to complete the units as a result of the insolvency. Accordingly, this suggests that the date on which loss actually occurred is far more important than a particular date of insolvency.

What does this mean for limitation periods?

The judgment in this case highlights the importance of understanding when the limitation period for claims begins, particularly in construction disputes involving insolvency.

The court’s decision clarifies that the critical moment is when the claimant suffers a financial loss, not the date of the contractor’s insolvency. This distinction has significant implications for construction projects and insurance claims, as it shifts the focus from the date of insolvency to the date on which actual loss was incurred.

This blog was written by Associate, Helen Rainford and Trainee Lawyer, Jake Horsnell.