Wyman-Gordon Ltd v. Proclad International Ltd [2005] ScotCS CSOH_177 (29 December 2005)

Wyman-Gordon Ltd v. Proclad International Ltd [2005] ScotCS CSOH_177 (29 December 2005)

The pursuers failed to meet the high standard required for summary decree because it could not be determined with near certainty at this stage whether the supply of Ex and Wex pipes was under a single contract or multiple contracts, and thus whether the defenders' right of retention applied. The contractual relationship and interdependence of obligations required further proof.

Citation
[2005] ScotCS CSOH_177
Parties
Pursuer: Wyman-Gordon Limited; Defender: Proclad International Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
29 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / Motion for Summary Decree (interlocutory)
Outcome
Motion for summary decree refused
Legal Topics
Right of Retention, Summary Decree, Interdependence of Contractual Obligations, Contract Formation, Standard Terms and Conditions
Contract Law Commercial Law Right of Retention Summary Decree Interdependence of Contractual Obligations Contract Formation Standard Terms and Conditions

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 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wyman-Gordon Limited

Pursuer

Proclad International Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / Motion for Summary Decree (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuers are entitled to summary decree for payment of invoices for Ex pipes
  2. 2 Whether the defenders' right of retention applies to sums due for Ex pipes based on alleged breach regarding Wex pipes
  3. 3 Whether the supply of Ex and Wex pipes was under a single contract or multiple contracts

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers failed to meet the high standard required for summary decree because it could not be determined with near certainty at this stage whether the supply of Ex and Wex pipes was under a single contract or multiple contracts, and thus whether the defenders' right of retention applied. The contractual relationship and interdependence of obligations required further proof.

Court Disposition

Motion for summary decree refused