South Lanarkshire Council v Coface SA [2015] ScotCS CSOH_8 (27 January 2015)

South Lanarkshire Council v Coface SA [2015] ScotCS CSOH_8 (27 January 2015)

On a proper construction of the Bond, the Council was required to serve only one document specifying breach and cost to trigger liability; the terms 'call', 'notice in writing', 'claim', and 'written demand for payment' are synonymous.

Citation
[2015] ScotCS CSOH_8
Parties
Pursuer: South Lanarkshire Council; Defender: Coface SA
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
27 January 2015
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action / Opinion Following Argument on Liability
Outcome
By order hearing fixed to discuss further procedure in light of the opinion.
Legal Topics
Performance Guarantee Bond, Contractual Interpretation, Notice Requirements
Contract Law Commercial Law Performance Guarantee Bond Contractual Interpretation Notice 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

South Lanarkshire Council

Pursuer

Coface SA

Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action / Opinion Following Argument on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction of the performance guarantee Bond
  2. 2 Validity of notice served to trigger the Bond

Ratio Decidendi

On a proper construction of the Bond, the Council was required to serve only one document specifying breach and cost to trigger liability; the terms 'call', 'notice in writing', 'claim', and 'written demand for payment' are synonymous.

Court Disposition

By order hearing fixed to discuss further procedure in light of the opinion.