Corporate Oil and Gas Ltd v Marshall Aviation Services Ltd

Corporate Oil and Gas Ltd v Marshall Aviation Services Ltd

A binding agreement was reached on 17 February 2012 between the parties for the outstanding account less a £130,000 rebate, and the Claimant is liable for that sum and for properly invoiced sums for work after that date. The Defendant's charges were reasonable, corrosion was not caused by failure to hangar, and the Defendant was entitled to assert a lien. The Claimant is not entitled to damages for conversion.

Parties
Claimant: Corporate Oil and Gas Limited; Defendant: Marshall Aviation Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Commercial Dispute / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the Defendant on the main issues; directions for further submissions on final figures and disposition of the aircraft.
Legal Topics
Aircraft Maintenance Contracts, Lien, Damages, Settlement Agreements
Contract Law Commercial Law Aircraft Maintenance Contracts Lien Damages Settlement Agreements

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Corporate Oil and Gas Limited

Claimant

Marshall Aviation Services Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Dispute / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the parties reached a binding agreement on 17 February 2012 regarding the outstanding account and rebate
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant's charges for work, materials, and storage were reasonable and payable
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant's failure to hangar the aircraft caused corrosion and damage

Ratio Decidendi

A binding agreement was reached on 17 February 2012 between the parties for the outstanding account less a £130,000 rebate, and the Claimant is liable for that sum and for properly invoiced sums for work after that date. The Defendant's charges were reasonable, corrosion was not caused by failure to hangar, and the Defendant was entitled to assert a lien. The Claimant is not entitled to damages for conversion.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Defendant on the main issues; directions for further submissions on final figures and disposition of the aircraft.

Orders

  • Claimant to pay Defendant £932,577.21 as at 17 February 2012 plus properly invoiced sums for work after that date, subject to deduction of between £35,565 and £40,965.20 for items not to be charged.
  • Further directions to be given on the final figures and the future of the aircraft.