T CLARKE (SCOTLAND) Ltd AGAINST MMAXX UNDERFLOOR HEATING Ltd [2014] ScotCS CSIH_83 (15 October 2014)

T CLARKE (SCOTLAND) Ltd AGAINST MMAXX UNDERFLOOR HEATING Ltd [2014] ScotCS CSIH_83 (15 October 2014)

The court refused to grant interim interdict because the pursuer failed to establish a prima facie case justifying such a drastic curtailment of the defender's statutory and contractual right to adjudication. The alleged conduct, while concerning, did not meet the high threshold required for court intervention, and a blanket prohibition on all future adjudications would be an unjustified innovation on the parties' rights. The balance of convenience also favoured the defender.

Citation
[2014] ScotCS CSIH_83
Parties
Pursuer and Reclaimer: T Clarke (Scotland) Limited; Defender and Respondent: MMAXX Underfloor Heating Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
15 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Refusal of Interim Interdict / Appeal (inner House, Extra Division, Court of Session)
Outcome
reclaiming motion refused
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Interim Interdict, Adjudication in Construction Contracts, Balance of Convenience, Statutory Rights Under Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996
Construction Law Civil Procedure Abuse of Process Interim Interdict Adjudication in Construction Contracts Balance of Convenience Statutory Rights Under Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996

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

Parties

T Clarke (Scotland) Limited

Pursuer and Reclaimer

MMAXX Underfloor Heating Limited

Defender and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Refusal of Interim Interdict / Appeal (inner House, Extra Division, Court of Session)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court can grant interim interdict to prevent a party from referring any future disputes to adjudication under a construction contract on grounds of alleged abuse of process or bad faith.
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer established a prima facie case for such interdict and whether the balance of convenience favoured granting it.

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to grant interim interdict because the pursuer failed to establish a prima facie case justifying such a drastic curtailment of the defender's statutory and contractual right to adjudication. The alleged conduct, while concerning, did not meet the high threshold required for court intervention, and a blanket prohibition on all future adjudications would be an unjustified innovation on the parties' rights. The balance of convenience also favoured the defender.

Court Disposition

reclaiming motion refused

Orders

  • Interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary refusing interim interdict affirmed.