Tube Tech International Ltd v Technip-Coflexip SA & Ors

Tube Tech International Ltd v Technip-Coflexip SA & Ors

The first four defendants, as the consortium TSKJ, were held out as the contracting parties through ostensible authority and conduct, and are liable for the unpaid invoices. The contracts were for services, not merely labour or equipment. The defendants' counterclaims for overpayment and damages fail as no implied term requiring full substantiation was established, and the sums claimed by Tube Tech are due except for certain consumables as specified.

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 / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant against the first four defendants; claim against the fifth defendant dismissed; counterclaims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Ostensible Authority, Consortium Liability, Implied Terms, Substantiation of Invoices, Interpretation of Contract Terms
Contract Law Commercial Law Ostensible Authority Consortium Liability Implied Terms Substantiation of Invoices Interpretation of Contract Terms

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 6
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 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who were the contracting parties to the four contracts?
  2. 2 Was Tube Tech entitled to payment for unpaid invoices?
  3. 3 Were the defendants entitled to counterclaim for overpayment and damages?

Ratio Decidendi

The first four defendants, as the consortium TSKJ, were held out as the contracting parties through ostensible authority and conduct, and are liable for the unpaid invoices. The contracts were for services, not merely labour or equipment. The defendants' counterclaims for overpayment and damages fail as no implied term requiring full substantiation was established, and the sums claimed by Tube Tech are due except for certain consumables as specified.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant against the first four defendants; claim against the fifth defendant dismissed; counterclaims dismissed.

Orders

  • First four defendants to pay Tube Tech £538,791.67 plus interest.
  • Claim against fifth defendant dismissed.