Fleming Buildings Ltd v Forrest [2010] ScotCS CSIH_8 (10 February 2010)

Fleming Buildings Ltd v Forrest [2010] ScotCS CSIH_8 (10 February 2010)

The court held that, on the objective evidence and the Lord Ordinary's findings, a contract existed between the pursuers and the defenders as individuals. The defenders' conduct, including attendance at meetings, instructions, and acceptance of documentation naming them as clients, confirmed the contract. The suggestion to contract with KWF was merely a request, not a counter-offer, and was not accepted by the pursuers. The adjudicator therefore had jurisdiction, and the defenders' reclaiming motion was refused.

Citation
[2010] ScotCS CSIH_8
Parties
Pursuers and Respondents: Fleming Buildings Ltd; First Defender and Reclaimer: Mrs Jane Forrest or Hives; Second Defender and Reclaimer: Mr William Forrest
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
10 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action for Payment (enforcement of Adjudicator's Award) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary affirmed.
Legal Topics
Formation of Contract, Adjudication in Construction Disputes, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Agency and Company Law, Offer and Acceptance
Contract Law Construction Law Civil Procedure Formation of Contract Adjudication in Construction Disputes Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Agency and Company Law Offer and Acceptance

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fleming Buildings Ltd

Pursuers and Respondents

Mrs Jane Forrest or Hives

First Defender and Reclaimer

Mr William Forrest

Second Defender and Reclaimer

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action for Payment (enforcement of Adjudicator's Award) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a contract existed between the pursuers and the defenders as individuals or with KWF Homes Limited
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction to make the award
  3. 3 Whether the defenders' actions constituted acceptance of the pursuers' offer

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, on the objective evidence and the Lord Ordinary's findings, a contract existed between the pursuers and the defenders as individuals. The defenders' conduct, including attendance at meetings, instructions, and acceptance of documentation naming them as clients, confirmed the contract. The suggestion to contract with KWF was merely a request, not a counter-offer, and was not accepted by the pursuers. The adjudicator therefore had jurisdiction, and the defenders' reclaiming motion was refused.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary affirmed.

Orders

  • Decree for payment of £117,350.50 plus interest to the pursuers
  • Decree for payment of £17,977.52 in respect of adjudicator's fees