Resource Recovery Solutions (Derbyshire) Limited (in administration) v Derbyshire County Council & Anor

Resource Recovery Solutions (Derbyshire) Limited (in administration) v Derbyshire County Council & Anor

The Court refused summary judgment and strike out on both issues of contractual interpretation, finding both parties’ constructions arguable and not fanciful, and that the issues should be determined at trial with the benefit of full factual and technical context. The Court also refused to strike out the Amended Reply, finding no abuse of process, new case, or tendentiousness warranting such relief. Costs of the original Reply were partially disallowed for prolixity, but no further strike out was ordered.

Parties
Claimant: Resource Recovery Solutions (Derbyshire) Limited (In Administration); Defendant: Derbyshire County Council; Defendant: Derby City Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil (contract/commercial) / Summary Judgment and Strike Out Applications Prior to Trial
Outcome
Summary judgment and strike out applications dismissed; partial costs order made against Claimant for original Reply preparation.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications, Contractual Interpretation, Public Private Partnerships, Waste Management Contracts
Contract Law Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Strike Out Applications Contractual Interpretation Public Private Partnerships Waste Management Contracts

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Resource Recovery Solutions (Derbyshire) Limited (In Administration)

Claimant

Derbyshire County Council

Defendant

Derby City Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (contract/commercial) / Summary Judgment and Strike Out Applications Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 58.3.3.3 of the Project Agreement requires assessment of the Councils’ actual intended performance and forecast rectification costs or is a wholly hypothetical exercise
  2. 2 Whether 'standard required' in clause 58.3.3.3 means all Contractor’s obligations under the Deemed New Contract or is limited to obligations delivering the full Unitary Charge without Deductions
  3. 3 Whether elements of the Amended Reply should be struck out as new case, tendentious, argumentative, or otherwise abusive

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused summary judgment and strike out on both issues of contractual interpretation, finding both parties’ constructions arguable and not fanciful, and that the issues should be determined at trial with the benefit of full factual and technical context. The Court also refused to strike out the Amended Reply, finding no abuse of process, new case, or tendentiousness warranting such relief. Costs of the original Reply were partially disallowed for prolixity, but no further strike out was ordered.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment and strike out applications dismissed; partial costs order made against Claimant for original Reply preparation.

Orders

  • Summary judgment refused on both issues of contractual interpretation.
  • Strike out application in relation to the Amended Reply dismissed.