Rohlig (UK) Ltd v Rock Unique Ltd

Rohlig (UK) Ltd v Rock Unique Ltd

The BIFA standard terms, including clauses 21(A) (no set-off) and 27(B) (time-bar), were incorporated into the contract and are enforceable as they satisfy the requirement of reasonableness under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. The sums claimed by Röhlig were due and not subject to set-off or counterclaim, and Rock Unique had no real prospect of defending the claim except on the agency issue, which was not summarily determinable. There was no evidential basis to defer summary judgment for possible future disclosure.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Röhlig (UK) Ltd; Defendant/appellant: Rock Unique Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Incorporation of Standard Terms, Set Off Clauses, Reasonableness Under Unfair Contract Terms Act, Time Bar Clauses, Agency Vs Principal Relationships
Contract Law Commercial Law Incorporation of Standard Terms Set Off Clauses Reasonableness Under Unfair Contract Terms Act Time Bar Clauses Agency Vs Principal Relationships

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Röhlig (UK) Ltd

Claimant/respondent

Rock Unique Ltd

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the BIFA standard terms, specifically clauses 21(A) (no set-off) and 27(B) (time-bar), were incorporated and enforceable
  2. 2 Whether those clauses satisfied the requirement of reasonableness under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
  3. 3 Whether the sums claimed by Röhlig were 'due' and not subject to set-off

Ratio Decidendi

The BIFA standard terms, including clauses 21(A) (no set-off) and 27(B) (time-bar), were incorporated into the contract and are enforceable as they satisfy the requirement of reasonableness under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. The sums claimed by Röhlig were due and not subject to set-off or counterclaim, and Rock Unique had no real prospect of defending the claim except on the agency issue, which was not summarily determinable. There was no evidential basis to defer summary judgment for possible future disclosure.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Summary judgment for Röhlig (UK) Ltd for £100,000 is upheld.
  • Rock Unique Ltd to pay £24,617.96 into court as a condition of defending the balance of the claim.