TG Can Ltd v Crown Packaging UK Plc [2007] EWHC 1271 (QB) (18 May 2007)

TG Can Ltd v Crown Packaging UK Plc [2007] EWHC 1271 (QB) (18 May 2007)

The amendments sought by TGC were not arguable as the implied terms pleaded were not necessary for business efficacy, contradicted the express terms, and the contract did not confer the relevant discretion on Crown. The contract treated TGC and Sandvik as a single supplier, and there was no obligation on Crown to allocate specific shares or volumes to TGC. The claim in contract had no real prospect of success and was dismissed.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 1271 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: TG Can Limited; Defendant: Crown Packaging UK PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / Interlocutory Judgment on Amendments, Strike Out, and Summary Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Implied Terms, Construction of Contracts, Summary Judgment, Pleading Amendments, Strike Out Applications
Contract Law Commercial Law Implied Terms Construction of Contracts Summary Judgment Pleading Amendments Strike Out Applications

Case Brief

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TG Can Limited

Claimant

Crown Packaging UK PLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / Interlocutory Judgment on Amendments, Strike Out, and Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant should have permission to re-amend the Particulars of Claim
  2. 2 Whether certain passages in the pre-re-amended Particulars of Claim should be struck out
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment should be entered for the defendant on the principal claim in contract

Ratio Decidendi

The amendments sought by TGC were not arguable as the implied terms pleaded were not necessary for business efficacy, contradicted the express terms, and the contract did not confer the relevant discretion on Crown. The contract treated TGC and Sandvik as a single supplier, and there was no obligation on Crown to allocate specific shares or volumes to TGC. The claim in contract had no real prospect of success and was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to amend Particulars of Claim refused
  • Relevant paragraphs of Particulars of Claim struck out