Dynniq UK Ltd v Lancashire County Council [2017] EWHC 3173 (TCC) (07 December 2017)
The contract, properly construed, provides that traffic safety and management is generally deemed included in the prices for other items in the Price List and is only to be separately measured and paid for when instructed on a Task Order for the exclusive use or benefit of the defendant or a third party, as expressly stated in sub-paragraph 2(xxviii) of the Preamble and the Note at the start of Series 100. The claimant's interpretation is inconsistent with the clear wording and commercial purpose of the contract.
- Citation
- [2017] EWHC 3173 (TCC)
- Parties
- Claimant: Dynniq UK Limited; Defendant: Lancashire County Council
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 07 December 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Part 8 Claim (cpr Part 8) / Judgment After Hearing
- Outcome
- Claimant's claim for declarations (a)(i) and (ii) refused; declaration (a)(iii) granted only in terms consistent with the contract's language.
- Legal Topics
- Contract Interpretation, Service Contracts, Measurement and Payment Provisions, Bespoke Contract Amendments
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Dynniq UK Limited
Claimant
Lancashire County Council
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim (cpr Part 8) / Judgment After Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Proper interpretation of sub-paragraph 2(xxviii) of the Preamble and the Note at the start of Series 100 in the Price List regarding traffic safety and management payments under the contract.
- 2 Whether traffic safety and management is always to be measured and paid for separately or only in specified circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The contract, properly construed, provides that traffic safety and management is generally deemed included in the prices for other items in the Price List and is only to be separately measured and paid for when instructed on a Task Order for the exclusive use or benefit of the defendant or a third party, as expressly stated in sub-paragraph 2(xxviii) of the Preamble and the Note at the start of Series 100. The claimant's interpretation is inconsistent with the clear wording and commercial purpose of the contract.
Court Disposition
Claimant's claim for declarations (a)(i) and (ii) refused; declaration (a)(iii) granted only in terms consistent with the contract's language.
Orders
- Declarations (a)(i) and (ii) refused.
- Declaration granted that traffic safety and management is only to be separately measured and paid for when instructed on a Task Order for the exclusive use or benefit of the defendant or a third party, in accordance with sub-paragraph 2(xxviii) and the Note at Series 100.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment