Karl Construction Ltd v. Palisade Properties Plc [2002] ScotCS 350 (14 January 2002)

Karl Construction Ltd v. Palisade Properties Plc [2002] ScotCS 350 (14 January 2002)

The pursuers' claim for payment is contingent as it depends on certification or equivalent decree, and thus inhibition on the dependence is incompetent absent special circumstances. The damages claim does not alter this, as enforcement of the contract is always available via arbitration or court. The pursuers have a colourable case for title to sue, but the inhibition must be recalled as the primary claim is contingent.

Citation
[2002] ScotCS 350
Parties
Pursuer: Karl Construction Limited; Defender: Palisade Properties Plc
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
14 January 2002
Procedural Posture
Commercial Construction Contract Dispute / Interlocutory Motion for Recall of Inhibition on the Dependence
Outcome
Recall of inhibition granted in part; pursuers' inhibition on the dependence recalled as incompetent for contingent claim.
Legal Topics
Building Contracts, Inhibition on the Dependence, Certification and Payment Mechanisms, Contingent Debts, European Convention on Human Rights Article 1 Protocol 1
Contract Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Building Contracts Inhibition on the Dependence Certification and Payment Mechanisms Contingent Debts European Convention on Human Rights Article 1 Protocol 1

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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karl Construction Limited

Pursuer

Palisade Properties Plc

Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Construction Contract Dispute / Interlocutory Motion for Recall of Inhibition on the Dependence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuers have title to sue under the contract as undisclosed principal
  2. 2 Whether the claim for payment is contingent and thus incompetent for inhibition on the dependence
  3. 3 Whether the damages claim alters the contingent nature of the claim

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers' claim for payment is contingent as it depends on certification or equivalent decree, and thus inhibition on the dependence is incompetent absent special circumstances. The damages claim does not alter this, as enforcement of the contract is always available via arbitration or court. The pursuers have a colourable case for title to sue, but the inhibition must be recalled as the primary claim is contingent.

Court Disposition

Recall of inhibition granted in part; pursuers' inhibition on the dependence recalled as incompetent for contingent claim.

Orders

  • Recall of inhibition on the dependence in respect of the pursuers' claim for payment and damages.