Tube Tech International Ltd v Technip-Coflexip SA & Ors [2005] EWHC 2 (TCC) (12 January 2005)

Tube Tech International Ltd v Technip-Coflexip SA & Ors [2005] EWHC 2 (TCC) (12 January 2005)

The first four defendants, by allowing their consortium name TSKJ to be used by the Madeiran companies and TSKJ Nigeria Limited, held out the fifth defendant as authorized to contract on their behalf. Tube Tech was entitled to believe it was contracting with the consortium. The fifth defendant had ostensible authority to contract for the consortium, making the consortium liable for the sums due under the contracts. The counterclaim for breach of contract regarding personnel was not established on the evidence.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 2 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Tube Tech International Limited; Defendant: Technip-Coflexip SA; Defendant: Snamprogetti SpA; Defendant: Kellogg Brown and Root Incorporated; Defendant: JGC Corporation; Defendant: LNG-Serviços e Gestão de Projectos Limitada
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 January 2005
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Ostensible Authority, Consortium Liability, Construction Contracts, Holding Out, Payment Disputes, Counterclaim for Breach of Contract
Contract Law Agency Law Commercial Law Ostensible Authority Consortium Liability Construction Contracts Holding Out Payment Disputes +1 more

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tube Tech International Limited

Claimant

Technip-Coflexip SA

Defendant

Snamprogetti SpA

Defendant

Kellogg Brown and Root Incorporated

Defendant

JGC Corporation

Defendant

LNG-Serviços e Gestão de Projectos Limitada

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who were the true contracting parties to the contracts between Tube Tech and the defendants?
  2. 2 Was the fifth defendant (LNG-Serviços e Gestão de Projectos Limitada) acting as principal or agent?
  3. 3 Did the first four defendants hold out the fifth defendant as having authority to contract on their behalf?

Ratio Decidendi

The first four defendants, by allowing their consortium name TSKJ to be used by the Madeiran companies and TSKJ Nigeria Limited, held out the fifth defendant as authorized to contract on their behalf. Tube Tech was entitled to believe it was contracting with the consortium. The fifth defendant had ostensible authority to contract for the consortium, making the consortium liable for the sums due under the contracts. The counterclaim for breach of contract regarding personnel was not established on the evidence.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Defendants (the consortium) are liable to Tube Tech for the unpaid balance of £643,295.11 plus interest.
  • Counterclaim for damages by defendants dismissed.