Maxi Construction Management Ltd v Mortons Rolls Ltd [2001] ScotCS 199 (7 August 2001)

Maxi Construction Management Ltd v Mortons Rolls Ltd [2001] ScotCS 199 (7 August 2001)

The pursuers' Interim Valuation No. 10 did not constitute a valid claim by the payee under the Scheme for Construction Contracts because it was an application for agreement of valuation, not a claim for payment, and it failed to specify the basis of calculation for several items as required by the Scheme. Therefore, the pursuers were not entitled to decree de plano for the interim payment sought.

Citation
[2001] ScotCS 199
Parties
Pursuer: Maxi Construction Management Limited; Defender: Mortons Rolls Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
07 August 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil (construction Contract Dispute) / Outer House, Court of Session – Opinion on Pleadings/interim Payment Application
Outcome
Action dismissed (subject to further order)
Legal Topics
Interim Payments, Construction Contracts, Statutory Payment Mechanisms, Contract Interpretation
Construction Law Contract Law Interim Payments Construction Contracts Statutory Payment Mechanisms Contract Interpretation

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

Parties

Maxi Construction Management Limited

Pursuer

Mortons Rolls Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil (construction Contract Dispute) / Outer House, Court of Session – Opinion on Pleadings/interim Payment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the document submitted by the pursuers constituted a valid application for interim payment or claim by the payee under the contract or statutory scheme
  2. 2 Whether the contract incorporated the amended Clause 30 regarding payment provisions
  3. 3 Whether the contract or the statutory Scheme for Construction Contracts applied to the payment process

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers' Interim Valuation No. 10 did not constitute a valid claim by the payee under the Scheme for Construction Contracts because it was an application for agreement of valuation, not a claim for payment, and it failed to specify the basis of calculation for several items as required by the Scheme. Therefore, the pursuers were not entitled to decree de plano for the interim payment sought.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed (subject to further order)

Orders

  • Sustain the defenders' first plea-in-law and dismiss the action, subject to a By Order hearing before final disposal.