D. S. Partnership vs. NATRIP
Background
A UK-based engineering consultancy had two contracts with the NATRIP Implementation Society (a body building specialised automotive-testing facilities in India): one capped at a fixed number of consultancy hours, another a lump-sum design contract. The consultant did extra design work it says was needed and necessary, and later billed for it as "additional work" under the hourly contract, but NATRIP refused payment because the contract required prior written approval from a specifically named official before exceeding the agreed hours: approval which had not been obtained from that specific person.
Decision Breakdown
The arbitral tribunal had found the extra work was genuinely done, but still denied payment because the required formal written approval was never obtained from the correct authorised official (discussions with other officials didn't count), and rejected an alternative "fair value for work done" claim because the contract already covered the situation and the work wasn't shown to be formally accepted. The High Court held this was a legally sound and possible reading of the contract, and, since patent illegality isn't a valid ground for challenging international commercial arbitration awards, declined to interfere, even though it meant the consultant went unpaid for real work performed.
Lesson Learnt
In contracts (especially with government/public bodies) that specify a particular official whose written approval is required before extra costs are incurred, doing the work informally, even with other officials' knowledge, may not entitle you to payment; get the specifically required sign-off in writing, from the specifically named person, before proceeding.