Moyarget Developments Ltd v Rove Mathis & Ors [2006] ScotCS CSOH_145 (15 September 2006)

Moyarget Developments Ltd v Rove Mathis & Ors [2006] ScotCS CSOH_145 (15 September 2006)

The pursuers' pleadings did not disclose a relevant or sufficiently specific basis for implying a term granting them continuing authority or obligations after submission of the planning application. The implication of such a term was not necessary for business efficacy, nor was it so obvious as to go without saying. The pursuers failed to specify what actions would have led to planning permission being granted or how the implied term would operate. Accordingly, the action was irrelevant and fell to be dismissed.

Citation
[2006] ScotCS CSOH_145
Parties
Pursuer: Moyarget Developments Limited; Defender: Mrs Rove Mathis and Others
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
15 September 2006
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / Debate on Relevancy and Specification Following Preliminary Proof
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Implied Terms, Business Efficacy, Quantum Meruit, Unjust Enrichment, Agency, Planning Permission, Breach of Contract
Contract Law Implied Terms Business Efficacy Quantum Meruit Unjust Enrichment Agency Planning Permission 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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moyarget Developments Limited

Pursuer

Mrs Rove Mathis and Others

Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / Debate on Relevancy and Specification Following Preliminary Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an implied term existed in the contract granting the pursuers continuing authority to act after submission of the planning application
  2. 2 Whether the pursuers' pleadings were sufficiently relevant and specific to proceed to proof

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers' pleadings did not disclose a relevant or sufficiently specific basis for implying a term granting them continuing authority or obligations after submission of the planning application. The implication of such a term was not necessary for business efficacy, nor was it so obvious as to go without saying. The pursuers failed to specify what actions would have led to planning permission being granted or how the implied term would operate. Accordingly, the action was irrelevant and fell to be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed

Orders

  • Defenders' preliminary plea sustained
  • Action dismissed