Curot Contracts Ltd (t/a Dimension Shop Fitting) v. Castle Inns (Stirling) Ltd (t/a Castle Leisure Group) [2008] ScotCS CSOH_179 (16 December 2008)

Curot Contracts Ltd (t/a Dimension Shop Fitting) v. Castle Inns (Stirling) Ltd (t/a Castle Leisure Group) [2008] ScotCS CSOH_179 (16 December 2008)

The adjudicator did not exceed his jurisdiction; he properly construed the contract, considered the parties' intentions and prior conduct, and applied the contract terms, including the Fit Out Budget Costs schedule, allowing adjustment by post-contract Bills of Quantities. Reasonableness was a legitimate factor in construction, not a disregard of contract terms.

Citation
[2008] ScotCS CSOH_179
Parties
Pursuer: Curot Contracts Limited, T/A Dimension Shop Fitting; Defender: Castle Inns (Stirling) Limited, T/A Castle Leisure Group
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action and Judicial Review / Post Adjudication Enforcement and Challenge
Outcome
challenge to adjudicator's decision rejected; decree proposed in favour of pursuers
Legal Topics
Adjudication Enforcement, Contract Interpretation, Variation Claims, Personal Bar
Construction Law Contract Law Adjudication Enforcement Contract Interpretation Variation Claims Personal Bar

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Curot Contracts Limited, T/A Dimension Shop Fitting

Pursuer

Castle Inns (Stirling) Limited, T/A Castle Leisure Group

Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action and Judicial Review / Post Adjudication Enforcement and Challenge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the adjudicator exceed his jurisdiction by disregarding contract terms?
  2. 2 Is the Fit Out Budget Costs schedule subject to adjustment by post-contract Bills of Quantities or only by variation instruction?
  3. 3 Does personal bar apply to prevent the defenders from denying sums previously certified?

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator did not exceed his jurisdiction; he properly construed the contract, considered the parties' intentions and prior conduct, and applied the contract terms, including the Fit Out Budget Costs schedule, allowing adjustment by post-contract Bills of Quantities. Reasonableness was a legitimate factor in construction, not a disregard of contract terms.

Court Disposition

challenge to adjudicator's decision rejected; decree proposed in favour of pursuers

Orders

  • Grant decree in favour of pursuers for sums awarded by adjudicator (£444,744.15 plus VAT and interest)
  • Refuse prayer of petition for reduction of adjudicator's decision