Is an invoice just containing a list of work a valid payment application?

Is an invoice containing a list of work carried out and a single sum due a valid payment application?

This question was addressed in a decision handed down on 16 April. In Jaevee Homes Limited v. Steve Fincham t/a Fincham Demolition [2025] EWHC 942 (TCC), the contractor engaged the sub-contractor to carry out demolition works at the former Mercy Nightclub in Norwich, and a dispute arose about payment.

The sub-contractor, Fincham, submitted a series of invoices to the contractor, Jaevee. The invoices contained a list of work carried out and a single sum due. As an example, the sub-contractor’s first invoice listed six activities carried out and stated “First Interim Payment £48,000 + 5% VAT”.

The contractor issued a Part 8 claim and alleged that the sub-contractor’s invoices were not valid payment applications because they did not set out the basis of calculation for the sum due (as required by section 110A(3)(b) the Construction Act).

The court said that assessing whether the basis of calculation was set out was a question of fact and degree which must consider the context of the contract. Considering the terms of the sub-contract and the context in which they were issued here, the majority of Fincham’s invoices were valid applications. The relevant factors included: the lump-sum nature and terms of the sub-contract; that the sub-contractor’s invoices could be read together with its quotation; and the parties’ previous dealings under other contracts.

A secondary question was whether the invoices were intended as payment notices. The court endorsed Fincham’s submissions that “The Claimant’s arguments as to the requirements of the Contract, the application of the Scheme and the requirements for the Invoices are divorced from the factual context and, with respect, the reality as to how these sorts of contracts can and do operate“. Again then, the court encouraged a fact-sensitive consideration of payment notices and their intent.

The decision confirms that the court will take a holistic view of whether a document is a valid payment application and a mathematical breakdown of the sum due is not strictly necessary, as well as confirming that attention needs to be paid to the context in which notices are served.

Archor acted for Fincham in this case, with Andrew Rush, Liam Hendry and Megan Green instructing James Frampton of Keating Chambers.