HHR Pascal BV v W2005 Puppet II BV

HHR Pascal BV v W2005 Puppet II BV

The SPA required strict compliance with notice provisions for Projected Substantial Completion Dates. Puppet's 18 December 2008 notice was invalid as it failed to provide the contractually mandated 10 business days' notice, depriving HHR of its inspection rights. Substantial completion could not be established...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: HHR Pascal B. V.; Defendant: W2005 Puppet II B. V.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contractual Dispute (summary Judgment Applications) / High Court (commercial Court) Summary Judgment Applications
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant (HHR) on both issues.
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Contractual Notice Provisions, Share Sale and Purchase Agreement, Conditions Precedent, Summary Judgment, Forfeiture of Deposit
Contract Law Commercial Law Interpretation of Contractual Notice Provisions Share Sale and Purchase Agreement Conditions Precedent Summary Judgment Forfeiture of Deposit

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HHR Pascal B. V.

Claimant

W2005 Puppet II B. V.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contractual Dispute (summary Judgment Applications) / High Court (commercial Court) Summary Judgment Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant's notice of 18 December 2008 was a valid contractual notice under the SPA
  2. 2 Whether substantial completion by 19 December 2008 satisfied the Defendant's obligations under the SPA absent proper notice

Ratio Decidendi

The SPA required strict compliance with notice provisions for Projected Substantial Completion Dates. Puppet's 18 December 2008 notice was invalid as it failed to provide the contractually mandated 10 business days' notice, depriving HHR of its inspection rights. Substantial completion could not be established outside the prescribed contractual process. Therefore, HHR was entitled to the return of the deposit.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant (HHR) on both issues.

Orders

  • Puppet's 18 December 2008 notice was without contractual effect.
  • HHR entitled to the return of the €25 million deposit.