CLIPPER VENTURES PLC v. MARK BOYDE [2012] ScotSC 20 (24 December 2012)

CLIPPER VENTURES PLC v. MARK BOYDE [2012] ScotSC 20 (24 December 2012)

Clause 21 of the Clipper 09/10 Race Crew Agreement is not unfair under the 1999 Regulations. The clause is clear, open, and provides a sliding scale of cancellation charges, which is proportionate given the specific and specialist nature of the contract. There is no significant imbalance or detriment to the appellant. The sheriff's analysis and application of the law were correct.

Citation
[2012] ScotSC 20
Parties
Pursuers and Respondents: Clipper Ventures PLC; Defender and Appellant: Mark Boyde
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
24 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal (sheriff Court Contract) / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal refused
Legal Topics
Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts, Cancellation Charges, Standard Form Contracts
Contract Law Consumer Protection Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Cancellation Charges Standard Form 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clipper Ventures PLC

Pursuers and Respondents

Mark Boyde

Defender and Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (sheriff Court Contract) / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Clause 21 of the Clipper 09/10 Race Crew Agreement is an unfair contract term under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999
  2. 2 Whether the appellant is a 'consumer' under Regulation 3 of the 1999 Regulations

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 21 of the Clipper 09/10 Race Crew Agreement is not unfair under the 1999 Regulations. The clause is clear, open, and provides a sliding scale of cancellation charges, which is proportionate given the specific and specialist nature of the contract. There is no significant imbalance or detriment to the appellant. The sheriff's analysis and application of the law were correct.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused

Orders

  • Adheres to the sheriff's interlocutor of 20 April 2012
  • Finds the appellant liable to the respondents in the expenses of the appeal