Hojgaard v. Forth Estuary Transport Authority [2004] ScotCS 239 (03 November 2004)

Hojgaard v. Forth Estuary Transport Authority [2004] ScotCS 239 (03 November 2004)

The statutory requirements for production of a valid sub-contractor's tax certificate or registration card are conditions precedent to payment under the construction contract. The absence of such documentation, attributable to the pursuers, meant the defenders were not in wrongful default and no interest was payable.

Citation
[2004] ScotCS 239
Parties
Pursuer: M T Højgaard A/S; Defender: Forth Estuary Transport Authority
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
03 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Debate on Interest Claim
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Subcontractor Tax Certificates, Interest on Late Payment, Statutory Conditions Precedent, VAT in Construction Contracts
Construction Law Tax Law Contract Law Subcontractor Tax Certificates Interest on Late Payment Statutory Conditions Precedent VAT in Construction Contracts

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M T Højgaard A/S

Pursuer

Forth Estuary Transport Authority

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Debate on Interest Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statutory requirements for tax documentation qualify contractual entitlement to payment under a construction contract
  2. 2 Whether interest is payable on sums withheld pending production of tax documentation

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory requirements for production of a valid sub-contractor's tax certificate or registration card are conditions precedent to payment under the construction contract. The absence of such documentation, attributable to the pursuers, meant the defenders were not in wrongful default and no interest was payable.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed

Orders

  • Defenders' first plea in law upheld
  • Claim for interest refused