Aedas Architects Ltd v Skanska Construction Uk Ltd [2008] ScotCS CSOH_64 (17 April 2008)

Aedas Architects Ltd v Skanska Construction Uk Ltd [2008] ScotCS CSOH_64 (17 April 2008)

The court held that the defenders' counter notices, when considered in context, provided sufficient attribution of withheld sums to the specified grounds, thus complying with both the contract and section 111 of the 1996 Act. The court further held that the defence was not bound to fail and that summary decree was inappropriate as factual issues could arise requiring evidence.

Citation
[2008] ScotCS CSOH_64
Parties
Pursuer: Aedas Architects Limited; Defender: Skanska Construction UK Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
17 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Commercial Construction Contract Dispute / Motion for Summary Decree
Outcome
Motion for summary decree refused
Legal Topics
Withholding Payment Under Construction Contracts, Interpretation of Statutory Payment Provisions, Summary Judgment Standards
Construction Law Contract Law Withholding Payment Under Construction Contracts Interpretation of Statutory Payment Provisions Summary Judgment Standards

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aedas Architects Limited

Pursuer

Skanska Construction UK Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Construction Contract Dispute / Motion for Summary Decree

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders' counter notices were 'effective' under section 111 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 and the contract
  2. 2 Whether summary decree should be granted in favour of the pursuers

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the defenders' counter notices, when considered in context, provided sufficient attribution of withheld sums to the specified grounds, thus complying with both the contract and section 111 of the 1996 Act. The court further held that the defence was not bound to fail and that summary decree was inappropriate as factual issues could arise requiring evidence.

Court Disposition

Motion for summary decree refused