That is not how i read it..This is on two fronts.. (1) the act of making a payment claim before the documents were reviewed regardless of any requirement of completion date (2) an adjusted clause requiring Primero to complete works by 28th of Feb.
In short in judge ruled in Wartsila favour in regards to point (1) for various reasons and ruled in Primeros favour for point (2).
The reasons make sense.. regarding point (1) all the arguments are listed and judge decided documents could not be / were not adequately reviewed therefor not payment claim is valid fort he 28th of Feb.. I tend to agree. Maybe Primero rushed this to make sure clause 40 was not void. In regards to point (2) He ruled that this did not affect clause 40 as 28th of Feb was still when completion occurred.
so in other words, throw away the payment claim only but Primero has still completed the work by the required date meaning they could now put a new payment claim forward seeing as official review / completion was approved in June by Wartsila AND Primero completed the works by the 28th of Feb.
