APC v Amey Construction Ltd & Ors [2004] ScotCS 182 (23 July 2004)

APC v Amey Construction Ltd & Ors [2004] ScotCS 182 (23 July 2004)

The Sub-Contract documentation is incomplete and its constitution depends on unresolved factual issues; the pursuers' entitlement to a bonus under Clause 22 of Appendix 1 and Appendix 7 was contingent on completion of specified works within the programme, which did not occur, so no relevant case for bonus is established; the pursuers may claim under both Clause 10 and Clause 20 for increased quantities if the factual requirements are met, subject to further determination of facts.

Citation
[2004] ScotCS 182
Parties
Pursuer: APC Limited (in receivership); Defender: Amey Construction Limited; Defender: Sir Robert McAlpine Limited; Defender: Taylor Woodrow Civil Engineering Limited; Defender: Barr Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
23 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Commercial Construction Dispute / Interlocutory Opinion on Agreed Questions of Law
Outcome
Partial answers to agreed questions; no final determination of claims or counterclaims.
Legal Topics
Sub Contract Formation, Bonus Entitlement, Valuation of Variations, Contract Interpretation
Construction Law Contract Law Sub Contract Formation Bonus Entitlement Valuation of Variations Contract Interpretation

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

APC Limited (in receivership)

Pursuer

Amey Construction Limited

Defender

Sir Robert McAlpine Limited

Defender

Taylor Woodrow Civil Engineering Limited

Defender

Barr Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Construction Dispute / Interlocutory Opinion on Agreed Questions of Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What documents constitute the Sub-Contract between the parties?
  2. 2 Is there a relevant case for payment of a bonus under Clause 22 of Appendix 1?
  3. 3 Can the pursuers claim under both Clause 10 and Clause 20 of Appendix 1 for increased quantities of excavated earthworks?

Ratio Decidendi

The Sub-Contract documentation is incomplete and its constitution depends on unresolved factual issues; the pursuers' entitlement to a bonus under Clause 22 of Appendix 1 and Appendix 7 was contingent on completion of specified works within the programme, which did not occur, so no relevant case for bonus is established; the pursuers may claim under both Clause 10 and Clause 20 for increased quantities if the factual requirements are met, subject to further determination of facts.

Court Disposition

Partial answers to agreed questions; no final determination of claims or counterclaims.

Orders

  • Question A (constitution of Sub-Contract): Not answered, pending factual determination.
  • Question B (bonus entitlement): Pursuers do not have a relevant case for bonus payment under Clause 22 of Appendix 1.