WESTERTON (UK) LIMITED AGAINST EDGE ENERGY LIMITED [2018] ScotCS CSOH_97 (11 October 2018)

WESTERTON (UK) LIMITED AGAINST EDGE ENERGY LIMITED [2018] ScotCS CSOH_97 (11 October 2018)

Clause 4.2 of the contract effects an assignation of property rights but does not impose any restriction on the defender's use of the assigned intellectual property or deliverables. The pursuer's pleadings do not aver a breach of property rights under general law, nor do they plead an implied term restricting use. Therefore, the pursuer's case is irrelevant and lacking in specification. Clause 4.5 is not engaged without averment of a request for delivery of documents/items.

Citation
[2018] ScotCS CSOH_97
Parties
Pursuer: Westerton (UK) Limited; Defender: Edge Energy Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
11 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / Debate on Relevancy and Specification of Pleadings
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Contract Clauses, Assignment of Intellectual Property, Use of Intellectual Property, Pleading Requirements
Contract Law Intellectual Property Law Interpretation of Contract Clauses Assignment of Intellectual Property Use of Intellectual Property Pleading Requirements

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Westerton (UK) Limited

Pursuer

Edge Energy Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / Debate on Relevancy and Specification of Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 4.2 of the contract prohibits the defender from using the assigned intellectual property and deliverables
  2. 2 Whether clause 4.5 obliges the defender to deliver documents/items sought by the pursuer

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 4.2 of the contract effects an assignation of property rights but does not impose any restriction on the defender's use of the assigned intellectual property or deliverables. The pursuer's pleadings do not aver a breach of property rights under general law, nor do they plead an implied term restricting use. Therefore, the pursuer's case is irrelevant and lacking in specification. Clause 4.5 is not engaged without averment of a request for delivery of documents/items.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed

Orders

  • Defender's first plea in law upheld
  • Action dismissed