<img src="[images%7COpenAccessDataProvider%7Ctmb%3Acarouselth]34fa62cf-8874-42fb-8718-81b3d1e284c3" sf-size="100"><p> </p><p>In <i>Mears v Costplan </i><a data-sf-ec-immutable="" href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=8V52-RK02-D6MY-P2FT&csi=279841&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t" target="_blank">[2019] EWCA Civ 502</a>, the Court
of Appeal has provided a useful summary of the law on the meaning of practical completion.</p><p>The ruling is an important one for construction lawyers—’practical completion’ is a term widely used, but often not defined, in construction contracts.</p><p>Following a review of various authorities on the meaning of practical completion, the court summarised the law as follows:</p><ul><li>practical completion is easier to recognise than define. There are no hard and fast rules</li><li>the existence of latent defects cannot prevent practical completion. In many ways this is self-evident—if the defect is latent, nobody knows about it and it cannot therefore prevent the certifier from concluding that practical completion has
been achieved</li><li>in relation to patent defects, there is no difference between an item of work that has yet to be completed (ie an outstanding item) and an item of defective work which needs to be remedied. Snagging lists usually identify both without distinction</li><li>practical completion is a state of af</li></ul>
Source: LexisNexis Purpose Built
Court of Appeal considers meaning of practical completion
