Watertite Ltd v North Lanarkshire Council [2010] ScotCS CSIH_50 (16 June 2010)

Watertite Ltd v North Lanarkshire Council [2010] ScotCS CSIH_50 (16 June 2010)

The Court held that closure of duplicate accounts can give rise to ongoing savings within the meaning of the contract, entitling the pursuers to 35% of such savings. The calculation method used by the pursuers was legitimate given the state of the pleadings and absence of contrary evidence or averment from the defenders. Even if the defenders' construction of the contract were correct, it would not have made a material difference to the sum due.

Citation
[2010] ScotCS CSIH_50
Parties
Pursuers and Respondents: Watertite Ltd.; Defenders and Appellants: North Lanarkshire Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal refused; Sheriff Court decision affirmed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Contract Terms, Entitlement to Payment for Ongoing Savings, Classification of Savings as Ongoing or One Off, Proof of Quantum in Contractual Claims
Contract Law Commercial Law Interpretation of Contract Terms Entitlement to Payment for Ongoing Savings Classification of Savings as Ongoing or One Off Proof of Quantum in Contractual Claims

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Watertite Ltd.

Pursuers and Respondents

North Lanarkshire Council

Defenders and Appellants

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether closure of duplicate accounts gives rise to ongoing savings under the contract
  2. 2 Whether the pursuers are entitled to 35% of ongoing savings as claimed
  3. 3 Whether the calculation of savings should be per account or by reference to total annual costs

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that closure of duplicate accounts can give rise to ongoing savings within the meaning of the contract, entitling the pursuers to 35% of such savings. The calculation method used by the pursuers was legitimate given the state of the pleadings and absence of contrary evidence or averment from the defenders. Even if the defenders' construction of the contract were correct, it would not have made a material difference to the sum due.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; Sheriff Court decision affirmed

Orders

  • Interlocutor of the Sheriff adhered to
  • Decree for £49,942.34 plus interest in favour of pursuers