DAVID MACBRAYNE LIMITED AGAINST ATOS IT SERVICES (UK) LIMITED [2018] ScotCS CSOH_32 (05 April 2018)

DAVID MACBRAYNE LIMITED AGAINST ATOS IT SERVICES (UK) LIMITED [2018] ScotCS CSOH_32 (05 April 2018)

The defender failed to achieve Milestones 3, 4, 5, and 7 by the revised dates, constituting material breaches of contract. The pursuer was entitled to terminate for cause under clause 55.1.5.2 and 55.1.5.3. The breaches were not caused by authority failures; the primary obligation to supply requirements granularity was on the defender. No valid waiver or personal bar was established. Damages for wasted expenditure on M-0, M-1, and M-2 milestone payments are recoverable. The counterclaim for declarator and damages fails.

Citation
[2018] ScotCS CSOH_32
Parties
Pursuer: David MacBrayne Limited; Defender: Atos IT Services (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
05 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action for Breach of Contract and Counterclaim for Declarator and Damages / Proof Before Answer
Outcome
Pursuer succeeds; defender's counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Termination for Breach, Material Breach, Waiver and Personal Bar, Damages for Wasted Expenditure, Change Control Procedures, Authority Responsibilities, Project Management Contracts
Contract Law Commercial Law IT Law Termination for Breach Material Breach Waiver and Personal Bar Damages for Wasted Expenditure Change Control Procedures +2 more

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 7 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David MacBrayne Limited

Pursuer

Atos IT Services (UK) Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action for Breach of Contract and Counterclaim for Declarator and Damages / Proof Before Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defender failed to achieve contractual milestones and was in material breach
  2. 2 Whether pursuer was entitled to terminate for cause under contract
  3. 3 Whether pursuer breached authority responsibilities causing delay

Ratio Decidendi

The defender failed to achieve Milestones 3, 4, 5, and 7 by the revised dates, constituting material breaches of contract. The pursuer was entitled to terminate for cause under clause 55.1.5.2 and 55.1.5.3. The breaches were not caused by authority failures; the primary obligation to supply requirements granularity was on the defender. No valid waiver or personal bar was established. Damages for wasted expenditure on M-0, M-1, and M-2 milestone payments are recoverable. The counterclaim for declarator and damages fails.

Court Disposition

Pursuer succeeds; defender's counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Pursuer entitled to damages for wasted expenditure on M-0, M-1, and M-2 milestone payments
  • Defender's counterclaim for declarator and damages refused