Aziz v Whannel [2010] ScotCS CSOH_136 (01 October 2010)

Aziz v Whannel [2010] ScotCS CSOH_136 (01 October 2010)

The 2005 and 2006 Minutes of Agreement constituted binding and separate agreements from the 2004 Missives. The two-year time bar in clause 10 of the 2004 Missives does not apply to the obligations under the 2005 and 2006 Minutes of Agreement. The pursuer's claim is therefore not time-barred and may proceed.

Citation
[2010] ScotCS CSOH_136
Parties
Pursuer: Abdul Aziz; Defender: Gillian Leslie Whannel
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
01 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Contractual Dispute / Debate on Relevancy (plea to Relevancy of Claim)
Outcome
Case to be put out By Order for further consideration; substantive defence rejected; decree de plano indicated as appropriate.
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Missives, Contractual Time Bar, Variation of Contract, Enforceability of Contractual Clauses
Contract Law Property Law Interpretation of Missives Contractual Time Bar Variation of Contract Enforceability of Contractual Clauses

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

Parties

Abdul Aziz

Pursuer

Gillian Leslie Whannel

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Contractual Dispute / Debate on Relevancy (plea to Relevancy of Claim)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the two-year contractual time bar in clause 10 of the 2004 Missives applies to the pursuer's claim for compensation under the 2005 and 2006 Minutes of Agreement
  2. 2 Whether the 2005 and 2006 Minutes of Agreement constitute separate binding agreements not subject to the time bar in the 2004 Missives

Ratio Decidendi

The 2005 and 2006 Minutes of Agreement constituted binding and separate agreements from the 2004 Missives. The two-year time bar in clause 10 of the 2004 Missives does not apply to the obligations under the 2005 and 2006 Minutes of Agreement. The pursuer's claim is therefore not time-barred and may proceed.

Court Disposition

Case to be put out By Order for further consideration; substantive defence rejected; decree de plano indicated as appropriate.