Special Metals Wiggin Limited v Corrotherm International Limited

Special Metals Wiggin Limited v Corrotherm International Limited

Clause 4 creates a valid bare express trust over proceeds of on-sold, unpaid goods, but there is a real prospect of defending the breach of trust claim because the underlying debt is disputed due to alleged defects. Clauses 6 and 7(b) do not exclude all defences but do exclude counterclaims for misrepresentation....

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Special Metals Wiggin Limited; Defendant: Corrotherm International Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Commercial/contractual Dispute / Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Summary judgment refused on all issues; issues to proceed to trial except as clarified.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Interpretation of Contractual Clauses, Exclusion Clauses, Trusts in Commercial Contracts, Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (ucta), Set Off and Counterclaims, Misrepresentation, Estoppel by Convention
Contract Law Commercial Law Equity and Trusts Summary Judgment Interpretation of Contractual Clauses Exclusion Clauses Trusts in Commercial Contracts Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (ucta) +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Special Metals Wiggin Limited

Claimant

Corrotherm International Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial/contractual Dispute / Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Interpretation and effect of Clauses 6 and 7(b) regarding exclusion of defences and counterclaims
  2. 2 Effect of non-compliance with condition precedent in Clause 6 on claims and counterclaims
  3. 3 Reasonableness of Clause 7(b) under UCTA

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 4 creates a valid bare express trust over proceeds of on-sold, unpaid goods, but there is a real prospect of defending the breach of trust claim because the underlying debt is disputed due to alleged defects. Clauses 6 and 7(b) do not exclude all defences but do exclude counterclaims for misrepresentation. The effect of Clause 6 and the reasonableness of Clause 7(b) under UCTA are fact-sensitive and unsuitable for summary determination. Clause 7(c) only excludes claims where notification of defect was not made within one year of delivery.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment refused on all issues; issues to proceed to trial except as clarified.

Orders

  • No summary judgment granted.
  • Clauses 6 and 7(b) do not exclude all defences but do exclude counterclaims for misrepresentation.