Citex Professional Services v. Kenmore Developments [2004] ScotCS 20 (28 January 2004)

Citex Professional Services v. Kenmore Developments [2004] ScotCS 20 (28 January 2004)

On current pleadings, proof before answer is allowed; if misleading information by pursuers is established, subject to contributory negligence, there is no relevant case for repayment of adjudicated sum; no relevant defence to counterclaim on merits.

Citation
[2004] ScotCS 20
Parties
Pursuer: Citex Professional Services Limited; Defender: Kenmore Developments Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 January 2004
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / Pleadings; Interlocutory Determination
Outcome
Proof before answer allowed; case put out by order for pursuers to consider amendment.
Legal Topics
Adjudication, Onus of Proof, Contributory Negligence, Condictio Indebiti, Breach of Contract, Contractual Indemnity
Contract Law Construction Law Adjudication Onus of Proof Contributory Negligence Condictio Indebiti Breach of Contract Contractual Indemnity

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Citex Professional Services Limited

Pursuer

Kenmore Developments Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / Pleadings; Interlocutory Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuers are liable for repayment of sums awarded by adjudication under the contract
  2. 2 Whether the onus of proof lies with pursuers or defenders in revisiting adjudicator's decision
  3. 3 Applicability of contributory negligence to breach of contract claims

Ratio Decidendi

On current pleadings, proof before answer is allowed; if misleading information by pursuers is established, subject to contributory negligence, there is no relevant case for repayment of adjudicated sum; no relevant defence to counterclaim on merits.

Court Disposition

Proof before answer allowed; case put out by order for pursuers to consider amendment.

Orders

  • Proof before answer granted
  • Case put out by order for pursuers to consider amendment