LONGHILL WIND FARM LLP AGAINST MUIRHALL ENERGY LTD AND OTHERS [2023] ScotCS CSIH_25 (22 June 2023)

LONGHILL WIND FARM LLP AGAINST MUIRHALL ENERGY LTD AND OTHERS [2023] ScotCS CSIH_25 (22 June 2023)

The provision in the Consent Missives had contractual effect as a term, not merely a statement. The benefit of the provision was assignable and was validly assigned to the pursuer. The provision covered both direct and indirect payments (including those made by an assignee) to the defenders or related companies through the operation of the Mitigation and Services Contract. The sixth defender was in breach of the provision and liable for damages of £1.6 million.

Citation
[2023] ScotCS CSIH_25
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: Longhill Wind Farm LLP; First Defender: Muirhall Energy Limited; Second Defender: Muirhall Energy Management Limited; Third Defender: Crossdykes WF Limited; Fourth Defender: Hopsrig Wind Farm Limited; Fifth Defender: Loganhead WF Limited; Sixth Defender and Reclaimer: MEL WWS Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
22 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute (reclaiming Motion / Appeal) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Commercial Judge's Decision
Outcome
Appeal (reclaiming motion) refused; cross-appeal refused; interlocutor recalled to correct slips; damages and declarator affirmed.
Legal Topics
Contract Interpretation, Assignment of Contractual Rights, Warranties, Damages for Breach of Contract
Contract Law Commercial Law Contract Interpretation Assignment of Contractual Rights Warranties Damages for Breach of Contract

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

Parties

Longhill Wind Farm LLP

Pursuer and Respondent

Muirhall Energy Limited

First Defender

Muirhall Energy Management Limited

Second Defender

Crossdykes WF Limited

Third Defender

Hopsrig Wind Farm Limited

Fourth Defender

Loganhead WF Limited

Fifth Defender

MEL WWS Limited

Sixth Defender and Reclaimer

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute (reclaiming Motion / Appeal) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Commercial Judge's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the provision in the Consent Missives had contractual effect
  2. 2 Whether the benefit of the provision was validly assigned to the pursuer
  3. 3 Whether the provision covered indirect payments via NATS under the Mitigation and Services Contract

Ratio Decidendi

The provision in the Consent Missives had contractual effect as a term, not merely a statement. The benefit of the provision was assignable and was validly assigned to the pursuer. The provision covered both direct and indirect payments (including those made by an assignee) to the defenders or related companies through the operation of the Mitigation and Services Contract. The sixth defender was in breach of the provision and liable for damages of £1.6 million.

Court Disposition

Appeal (reclaiming motion) refused; cross-appeal refused; interlocutor recalled to correct slips; damages and declarator affirmed.

Orders

  • Refuse reclaiming motion (appeal) by sixth defender
  • Refuse cross-appeal by pursuer