Name borrowing is not a new concept and, in theory, it is a relatively simple one. What happens is that a subcontractor borrows the name of the main contractor to pursue a claim against an employer with which it has no contractual relationship. The benefit for the main contractor is clear - it passes the risk of dealing with claims to the subcontractor. Over the years, however, the unique legal relationships this process creates have left the courts grappling with some difficult questions. The recent case of London & Regional Properties vs the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and the secretary of state for defence (18 March 2008), is just one example. London & Regional agreed to refurbish St George's Court in London for the MoD, and employed Shepherd Construction to do so. Shepherd claimed additional payment for tenant variations from London & Regional. Shepherd and London & Regional agreed that Shepherd could borrow London & Regional's name to pursue such claims against the MoD and how any sums recovered would be split between them. Proceedings were duly commenced by Shepherd's advisers in the name of London & Regional.
展开▼
