Technip-Coflexip SA & Ors v Tube Tech International Ltd

Technip-Coflexip SA & Ors v Tube Tech International Ltd

Contracts 1 and 2 were contracts for services, not for the hire of men and equipment. Tube Tech was entitled to charge at the agreed daily rate regardless of the number of men on site, and was not obliged to substantiate charges by reference to the number of men or equipment. Contract 2A was not enforceable against...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: TECHNIP-COFLEXIP SA; Appellant: SNAMPROGETTI SpA; Appellant: KELLOGG BROWN AND ROOT INCORPORATED; Appellant: JGC CORPORATION; Appellant: LNG-SERVICOS e GESTÃO de PROJECTOS LIMITADA (5D); Respondent: TUBE TECH INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Contracts, Services Vs Hire Contracts, Enforceability of Incentive Agreements, Consideration
Contract Law Commercial Law Interpretation of Contracts Services Vs Hire Contracts Enforceability of Incentive Agreements Consideration

Source-derived case record

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 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TECHNIP-COFLEXIP SA

Appellant

SNAMPROGETTI SpA

Appellant

KELLOGG BROWN AND ROOT INCORPORATED

Appellant

JGC CORPORATION

Appellant

LNG-SERVICOS e GESTÃO de PROJECTOS LIMITADA (5D)

Appellant

TUBE TECH INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether contracts 1 and 2 were contracts for services or for the hire of men and equipment
  2. 2 Whether Tube Tech was entitled to charge irrespective of the number of men on site
  3. 3 Whether contract 2A was enforceable against 5D

Ratio Decidendi

Contracts 1 and 2 were contracts for services, not for the hire of men and equipment. Tube Tech was entitled to charge at the agreed daily rate regardless of the number of men on site, and was not obliged to substantiate charges by reference to the number of men or equipment. Contract 2A was not enforceable against 5D as no consideration passed between Tube Tech and 5D, but since 5D received the money from NLNG, it must pay Tube Tech.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed in relation to contracts 1 and 2; Tube Tech entitled to payment at daily rate for services.
  • Appeal dismissed in relation to contract 2A; 5D to pay Tube Tech the sum received from NLNG.