Premier Engineering (Lincoln) Ltd v MW High Tech Projects UK Ltd

Signed timesheets are primary evidence of hours worked where a labour-supply contract provides for invoicing by reference to them, but they are not conclusive and may be corrected by admissible evidence of mistake. Parties may agree to exclude a particular form of verification data, and a court should give effect to that agreement where one party obtained the commercial benefit of it. Objective attendance data may assist in checking attendance and start and finish times, but does not ordinarily establish what workers were doing during the day or whether alleged inactivity was excessive or attributable to breach. An informal agreement may vary the evidential basis for valuation where the relevant representative had authority and the surrounding conduct objectively supports agreement. A contractual notice period must be interpreted in the practical context of a labour requisition arrangement.

Premier supplied labour, supervision, materials and plant to MW for a major construction project. The parties operated through informal arrangements, weekly labour requirements, signed timesheets and invoices. Their dispute concerned the valuation of labour, the contractual significance of biometric and turnstile data, alleged excessive breaks and productivity, termination and notice, materials and plant, and later quality-assurance work.

The court also considered whether MW had agreed that biometric data, rather than turnstile data, would be used to check timesheets, and whether MW was liable for payments following the removal of most of Premier’s workforce from site.

The claim succeeded in substantial part. The parties’ agreement of February 2018 included a one-week minimum notice period and terms requiring payment for materials, small tools, equipment and hired plant at cost plus 15%, subject to ordinary PPE being treated as Premier’s overhead.

1. A further agreement was reached in early April 2018 that labour would be valued by reference to timesheets presented to and accepted by MW, together with biometric data where available, but not turnstile data. The 1 May revision was rejected and did not become contractual.
2. At the 24 May meeting, MW agreed that biometric data, rather than turnstile data, would be used to check timesheets for major inaccuracies. There was no binding agreement that the turnstiles were inherently unreliable or that biometric data was the primary basis of invoicing.
3. Signed timesheets were primary, reliable evidence of hours worked, subject to correction for demonstrated mistakes. Other admissible evidence could be considered unless excluded by agreement. Turnstile data was excluded, and MW could not retract that agreement after benefiting from keeping Premier on site.
4. MW failed to establish a quantifiable case concerning excessive breaks, unproductivity or work not properly performed. Attendance data could assist with start and finish times but could not establish what workers were doing during intervening periods.
5. MW instructed Premier on 9 July 2018 to remove most of its labour. The instruction engaged the one-week notice term. Premier was awarded £135,000 for the notice week and £85,000 as the separate agreed contribution towards resolving the workforce protest.
6. MW’s materials and plant objections substantially failed, save for a broad-brush allowance of £49,450 including uplift, principally reflecting standard PPE. The parties agreed a judgment sum of £512,916.73 plus VAT, or £615,500.08 inclusive of VAT.