JDM Accord Ltd. v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

A contractor may recover reasonable additional remuneration where the employer varies the contract and materially enlarges its scope. Contractual payment provisions must be construed commercially, having regard to the agreed working arrangements and factual background.

Where an employer fails to perform an agreed verification procedure, it cannot use that breach to obtain a wider evidential advantage. Contemporaneous records may be displaced only by significant credible evidence of inaccuracy. Interim payments remain subject to final review unless the parties clearly agree otherwise.

JDM supplied labour, plant and aggregate for extensive foot and mouth disease control works under a call-off contract with DEFRA. The work expanded substantially beyond the contract’s contemplated scope and included burial-site civil engineering, numerous farms and rapid-response operations.

The court determined disputes concerning travelling time, meal breaks, plant operators’ rates, interim payments, timesheets and aggregate quality. It also considered estoppel and whether sample-site findings could guide claims at other sites.

1. Variations. DEFRA’s instructions materially enlarged the scope and method of performance. Under clause 2, JDM was entitled to reasonable additional remuneration where the existing rates did not cover the varied work. This included accommodation-to-site travelling time and a new plant-operator rate.
2. Travelling and waiting time. “Base” in the travelling-time provision meant the base from which the operative was working on the day in question. “Base” in the accommodation provision meant the home or permanent base. Travel between accommodation and site, including travel to a depot or pick-up point, was chargeable. Waiting at the depot and while rapid-response teams awaited instructions also counted as chargeable time.
3. Meal breaks. A deductible main meal break required genuine respite away from the working environment. Walking time was not deductible. The customary assumed deduction was 30 minutes where the actual duration was unknown, but no deduction arose where no qualifying break was taken. The same principle applied to plant operators and associated plant, subject to prior agreement.
4. Payments and evidence. Payments made during the works were interim and provisional, and DEFRA could seek repayment or credit for proven overpayments in the final account. DEFRA’s failure to provide agreed site verification meant that it bore the evidential burden of showing that unsigned timesheets were inaccurate. Unsupported general challenges could not displace them.
5. Estoppel. Estoppel principles had to be applied site by site. An agreed assumption or course of dealing could bind the parties where it would be inequitable to resile and would cause detriment, but only to the extent necessary to avoid that detriment.
6. Plant operators. No final oral agreement or estoppel fixed the electrician’s rate. The appropriate rate was a reasonable star rate derived from industry rates and expert evidence. The court adopted £18.70 per hour, subject to contractual uplifts and overtime factors.
7. Disposition. JDM succeeded at the twelve sample sites. No deductions were justified for labour, plant operators or aggregate. No monetary award was made pending schedules identifying the sums due; the findings stood as declarations.