SCOT ROADS PARTNERSHIP PROJECT LTD AGAINST THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS [2019] ScotCS CSOH_113 (31 December 2019)

SCOT ROADS PARTNERSHIP PROJECT LTD AGAINST THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS [2019] ScotCS CSOH_113 (31 December 2019)

The court held that the majority of the evidence led by the defenders was inadmissible, as it concerned subjective intentions, post-contractual events, or facts not averred as known to both parties. Applying the objective interpretation of the AGS, the pursuer had submitted documents similar in all respects to the advance information required, including a traffic management proposal and communications plan, in the form of a Company Notice of Change (CNC 24), within the stipulated timeframe. The defenders were contractually obliged to approve these documents by 21 October 2016 and failed to do so, constituting breach of contract.

Citation
[2019] ScotCS CSOH_113
Parties
Pursuer: Scot Roads Partnership Project Limited; Defenders: The Scottish Ministers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
31 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action (outer House, Court of Session) / Proof Before Answer
Outcome
Declarator granted; breach of contract established.
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Contract Terms, Obligations Under Settlement Agreements, Approval of Traffic Management Proposals, Communications Plan Requirements
Contract Law Construction Law Public Procurement Interpretation of Contract Terms Obligations Under Settlement Agreements Approval of Traffic Management Proposals Communications Plan 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Scot Roads Partnership Project Limited

Pursuer

The Scottish Ministers

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action (outer House, Court of Session) / Proof Before Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the pursuer submit a traffic management proposal and communications plan as required by the Agreement for General Settlement (AGS)?
  2. 2 Were the defenders in breach of contract by failing to approve the submitted documents by the stipulated date?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the majority of the evidence led by the defenders was inadmissible, as it concerned subjective intentions, post-contractual events, or facts not averred as known to both parties. Applying the objective interpretation of the AGS, the pursuer had submitted documents similar in all respects to the advance information required, including a traffic management proposal and communications plan, in the form of a Company Notice of Change (CNC 24), within the stipulated timeframe. The defenders were contractually obliged to approve these documents by 21 October 2016 and failed to do so, constituting breach of contract.

Court Disposition

Declarator granted; breach of contract established.

Orders

  • The defenders are declared to have breached their obligations under the Agreement for General Settlement by failing to approve the traffic management proposal and communications plan submitted by the pursuer on or before 21 October 2016.