Calor Gas Ltd v Express Fuels (Scotland) Limited & Anor [2006] ScotCS CSOH_170 (02 November 2006)

Calor Gas Ltd v Express Fuels (Scotland) Limited & Anor [2006] ScotCS CSOH_170 (02 November 2006)

The defenders' admitted or averred conduct—accepting, handling, or taking into custody the pursuers' gas cylinders from customers—constituted a breach of the interim interdicts, as the ordinary and natural meaning of the interdicts' terms prohibited such acts regardless of motive. The defenders' pleadings did not provide a relevant defence, and no proof was required to reach this conclusion.

Citation
[2006] ScotCS CSOH_170
Parties
Pursuer: Calor Gas Limited; Defender: Express Fuels (Scotland) Limited; Defender: D Jamieson & Son Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
02 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Minute for Breach of Interdict in Principal Action for Interdict and Damages / Procedure Roll Debate on Relevancy of Defences
Outcome
Defenders' defences held irrelevant; pursuers' plea-in-law upheld; defenders' pleas-in-law repelled.
Legal Topics
Interdict (injunction), Breach of Interdict, Interpretation of Court Orders, Competition and Restraint of Trade, Possession and Custody, Mitigation and Specification of Pleadings
Contract Law Delict (tort) Competition Law Civil Procedure Interdict (injunction) Breach of Interdict Interpretation of Court Orders Competition and Restraint of Trade +2 more

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Calor Gas Limited

Pursuer

Express Fuels (Scotland) Limited

Defender

D Jamieson & Son Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Minute for Breach of Interdict in Principal Action for Interdict and Damages / Procedure Roll Debate on Relevancy of Defences

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defenders' admitted or averred conduct constituted breach of interim interdicts
  2. 2 Proper interpretation of the terms 'handling', 'possession', and 'interfering with' in the context of the interdicts
  3. 3 Relevancy of defenders' motives and industry practice as defences to breach of interdict

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders' admitted or averred conduct—accepting, handling, or taking into custody the pursuers' gas cylinders from customers—constituted a breach of the interim interdicts, as the ordinary and natural meaning of the interdicts' terms prohibited such acts regardless of motive. The defenders' pleadings did not provide a relevant defence, and no proof was required to reach this conclusion.

Court Disposition

Defenders' defences held irrelevant; pursuers' plea-in-law upheld; defenders' pleas-in-law repelled.

Orders

  • Case put out by order for discussion of further procedure.